|
Printable version |
From: | "Brian Brakenridge" <brianbrak@xtra.co.nz> |
Date: | Thu, 4 Nov 1999 22:03:41 +1300 |
Hi there:
Have been reading recent posting re: company
valuations and question if, especially for relatively new investors, the basics
for company selection are being overlooked. I use the analogy that if your car
doesn't start in the morning do you go straight to the computerized electronic
fuel injection system before you check to see if there's any fuel in the
tank?
Please don't get me wrong. The analyses you guys are working
through are critical in the overall appraisal of a prospective company but do
they come before or after you have appraised the companies fundamentals ie. do
you look at the quality of the company before it's present and future (largely
speculative) value.
I have spoken of the Motley Fools (www.fool.com) before and about how they stress
the fundamentals. For those of you who may be a little bamboozled by the
calculations of the last few postings and even for those of you who are deeply
engrossed in these calculations can I suggest or ask you to go to the above
site, click on the "Strategies" section then "Rule Maker".
On the right hand column you will find a section headed "11 Steps". In
particular I recommend Steps 6 & 7 as being hugely interesting and though
are written through an American perspective I think outline the basics very
well.
"Our quite contrary take is that any intense process designed
around arriving at a present-day fair price for a given stock greatly underrates
the long-term merits of the business that underlies it."
"If we grant you that finding companies like Coca-Cola is a
challenge, will you grant us that if you can find them, worrying about their P/E
ratio today, or their projected cash flows over the next five years, or the
images on their stock graph, is worrying about something that will end up being
totally inconsequential? Given the performance of just Coca-Cola (and there are
other examples), at what point over the last eight decades would it have been
smart to stress out about the stock's immediate fair price? We submit to you
then, Fool, that valuation isn't half so important as quality and the durability
of the business model."
"In fact, we'll go so far as to say that the quality of the
company is fully 100 times more important than the immediate value of its stock
price."
I'm interested in any comments you may have. I have applied
the citeria to a number of NZ companies and one which stands out is Baycorp
(BCH). Anyone been following them recently?
Cheers, Brian
|
Replies
|