|
Morgy,
Don't know how long you've been contributing to the
site but I'm sure your numerous and valuable contributions will be missed
by contributors and viewers alike.
May I ask... why Australia?
Regards,
Cris
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 11:16
PM
Subject: [sharechat] Snoopy & Noah's
Ark
Snoopy
I note the quote on the bottom of your email, it
went like this,
Q: If you call a dog tail a leg, how many legs does a
dog
have.
A: Four.
Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
A classic re your posts
recently, call it what you want , your investment
strategy was exposed for
the "hobby" that it is. As Phaedrus says, he has
done this for years with
you, exposing your blatant weaknesse's, based on
dogma, you really would
have fitted in well with the communists, they dont
like making money
either.
I personally have been here for almost 3
years.
Your credibility in the last 3 years has dropped to the levels
of your posts
re RBD recently, even people who profess to minimal financial
literacy are
having the belief to tell you, you are wrong !. Common sense
dictates so.
I spent considerable time going through your strategy ,
almost point by
point, your only reply was that Phaedrus had said the same
thing or I think
to paraphrase your words, had beat you up about that x
many times ago.
The question I ask you in all sincerity is, are you
stupid ! , have you
learnt nothing in all this time.
People
come on to this board and pass you by, once your limited skills are
learnt.
There are stock screens on every financial web site that can pass on
the
info you have without falling in love with the stock like you do and
losing
all that money.
Like a Catholic Priest and a Boy Scout Leader,
your philosophy is to be
avoided at all costs. I am glad you dont teach my
children.
To Allan, Macdunk, Cristine., Phyllis, Robyn, Hoops,
winner69, Woody, et
al, your input has been sensational, this site
was dead, thats why they sold
it back to NZ. Recently it has come alive,
volume of posts is an important &
classic TA sign, but more
importantly disagreement, questioning, ideas,
shifts of thinking, this
makes a healthy site.
I sign off here forever, thank you all for my
education.
Phaedrus, my debt to you is enormous, , TA course 101 and
beyond. I wrote
Phaedrus an email several weeks ago entitled "Living The
Dream", I can only
say a public & simple kiwi, thanks
mate.
To everyone that I email "offlist", thanks for your support ,
ideas and
offerings, its a big part of my new life and I appreciate all the
emails
from USA , UK & Australia (my new home). Anyone is welcome to
email me,
please, :-)
Phyllis, your kindness to me the
other week in Auckland was much
appreciated, I met a number of people who
Live The Dream also.
As
Always
Regards
Morgy
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003
3:43 PM
Subject: Re: [sharechat] The RBD rebound.
> Hi
Phaedrus,
>
> >
> >Snoopy,
> >You
state
> >>"The more I study the RBD share price chart, the
more I am
> >>convinced that it has almost no value."
>
>
> >You must surely be joking!!! The RBD chart has so far proved
its
> > worth in a very satisfactory manner.
>
>
>
> Ah, I thought you might bite Phaedrus ;-)
>
>
>
> > The chart gave an absolutely
> >unequivocal SELL
signal on 7/5/02, giving an exit at $2.10
> >(Price/volume climax,
trendline break, moving average
> >crossover etc) The simplest of TA
techniques got you out of
> > this stock just after its peak and kept
you out for a year and
> > a half while it fell by over 40%.
>
>
>
> I think the event you refer to was the AMP selling
out. They had a large
> volume of shares to sell, so it is
not surprising that the price became
> depressed in the time immediately
following the sale which would have
> also depressed the moving
average. IOW those multiple signals you
> noted were simply
three different manifestations of the same thing.
>
> IIRC AMP was
facing an outflow of client funds at the time so why not
> sell
something on which they had made a good profit? I don't see
that
> AMP selling out is a reason for all other shareholders to do the
same.
>
> As it turned out perhaps they should have, but it is
easy to say a lot of
> things in hindsight. Please note I am
talking from an F/A perspective at
> the time here. I know
the pure chartist would have sold as your chart
> demonstrated.
But I don't use 'pure charting'.
>
> >
> >RBD gave a
trendline break
> >buy signal yesterday at $1.33, though it is still
in a
> >long-term downtrend and the moving average has not
been
> >crossed yet.
> >
>
> So I should wait
until other fundamental analysts have done the work
> that I have
already done before buying in, you mean......
>
> >
>
>Contrast this with your actions/recommendations based on
>
>fundamentals. On 29/5/02, when RBD was $2.06 and a confirmed
>
>downtrend was in place, you said "The fact that the yield of these
>
>shares is so good means there exists a floor through which the
share
> >price is unlikely to fall".
> >
>
>
Yes. It looks like that 'floor' was around the $1.25, with the
benefit
of
> hindsight. We are talking about a
significant correction but not an ITC
> like collapse
here.
>
> >
> >You spoke of RBD "having a growth
strategy in place"
> >
>
> It did. Still
does. But business plans do not always go exactly in
> accordance
with shareholder expectations.
>
> >
> >and continued
"I won't be quitting any of my
> >income portfolio shares. I don't
have to sell them, and I am quite
> >happy to keep the income rolling
in". While this modest income
> >"rolled in", the capital value of
your investment fell by over 40%.
> >
>
> No, the value
of my RBD shares, part of a much larger portfolio, fell by
>
40%. Or adding back in the 18c per share of dividend I have
received
> brings the share price fall down to 30%.
Considering you selectively
> charted some of the darkest days of RBD
history, and this is my worst
> performing 'income' share I am quite
pleased if this is as dark as it
gets.
>
> Nevertheless,
despite all this chart drama, (while the actual performance
> of the
underlying business was quite steady) I would still be cash flow
>
positive on my RBD investment if I sold today.
>
> >
>
>By 25/7/02, when RBD had fallen by about 20% and the downtrend
>
rolled
> >on, you said "RBD is a 'Buffespeculative' buy at these
levels" and
> >"RBD, at $1.75, is one of those rare shares that is of
interest to
> > both the 'income' and 'growth'
investor".
> >
>
> You did see the word
'speculative' there, didn't you?
>
> A 'speculative buy'
consists of swallowing the management's recovery
> story and seeing it
come right. It doesn't always happen. In
this
case
> the speculation did not pay off.
The best way to pop a share price is
> to destroy any built in inflated
expectations of growth. That is exactly
> what happened with
RBD. None of this means that RBD was *not* a
> speculative buy at
the time, as the story could have gone the other way.
> None of this
means that RBD is not a good buy today.
>
> But yes, buying in at
$1.75 was a mistake for the income investor, with
> hindsight, seen in
the cold light of today. Come back in another three
>
years and it might not be a mistake though, if the alternative was
>
sticking your money in the bank for five years at 6%. The RBD
share
> price would only have to recover to $1.50 or so by 2006 for
the
> economic analysis to look much better.
>
>
>
> >RBD has fallen a further 25% since then.
> > So much
for standalone fundamental analysis and high
> >yields providing a
floor. What price income?
> >
>
> Share prices do rise
and fall. Income investors know this. The share
> price
floor of around $1.25 may have been lower than some income
> investors
would have hoped for, but 'hey' that's life. The share
price
> did not keep falling when it breached the $1.25 support
line.
>
> >
> >Snoopy, you must learn to recognise a
downtrend. You claim "Over the
> >last year RBD has been in a trading
range of $1.25 to $1.60" Quite
> >wrong. Over the last year RBD has
been making lower highs and lower
> >lows - this is a
downtrend.
> >
>
> OK it has been in a downtrend *and* in
a trading range of around $1.25
> to $1.60. The question is, does
the fact that it has been in a downtrend
> mean that the downtrend will
continue? At some point the downtrend
> will surely
end. I see a support line on your chart Phaedrus at
$1.25
> which you haven't marked. Yes I know it was
'breached' when the
> share went down to $1.23 but I would regard that
as 'noise' rather than a
> breach of any significance.
>
>
>
> >>It is in the nature of charting that entry into a share
is always
> >>late.... all a late entry does is reduce your
potential profits"
> >
> >Wrong. If you wait for an
established downtrend to reverse before
> >buying, "late" entries
also reduce your risk of loss and often give a
> >more favourable
entry price.
> >
>
> That depends on whether you think a
share in a downtrend will continue
> in a downtrend. The lower the
downtrend goes, provided business
> prospects remain reasonable, the
greater the chance that it will end.
> At a certain point the share
price becomes so cheap the chances of the
> share price suddenly spiking
higher become greater than the chances of
> it descending
further. I use F/A to determine such points and in
my
> judgement $1.25 is such a point for RBD.
>
>
>
> >I'll bet you wish that your entries into RBD earlier
this
> > year had been "late"!
> >
>
> No, I
wish I hadn't believed the RBD PR hype. If I hadn't
swallowed it,
> F/A would have kept me out of the share.
>
>
>
> >>"The other 'problem' with charting is that the share
price movements
> >>do not seem to relate to any developments
within the company. In
> >> other words share price movements seem
to be essentially random
> and
> >> unrelated to underlying
performance."
> >
> >Snoopy, this is not the problem
>
>with charting - this is the problem with fundamental analysis!!!!
In
> >any case, over the period of the chart, RBD's shareprice
movement
> has
> >most certainly NOT been random. There was a
very clear uptrend
> >immediately followed by an equally obvious
downtrend.
> >
>
> I think it depends on how you define
'random', and what part of the chart
> you are concentrating
on. Of particular interest to me is what has
> happened over
the past year.
>
> I would like to think that with the benefit of
hindsight you can correlate
> share price movements with real
events. In the period immediately prior
> to the announcement of
the FY2003 financial results the share price
> moved from $1.35 to $1.60
and back down to $1.25 all within a period of
> three
months. What announcements could have
caused this? I
> don't recall any.
>
> I don't
believe there was anything in the fundamentals of the business
> that
varied that much in such a short timeframe. I don't believe
the
> investors who traded RBD shares in this time period believed that
what
> they were doing had any fundamental relationship with the
performance
> of the business. That being so
then, I see no reason to change my
> opinion now, with comments on
the other channel about selling because
> the share price breached the
$1.25 level reinforcing my point. However,
> if there are RBD
punters who are so foolish out there then I will
certainly
> take
advantage of them - and I did.
>
> >
> >"It is very
difficult to be an F/A person then use T/A to select an
> >entry
point in such circumstances" Not at all. Your primary investment
>
>parameters are still valid. Just don't buy into an established
>
>downtrend, that's all. It is that easy to combine the two
techniques.
> >
>
> I didn't believe the downtrend was
established any more. That is why I
> bought. I
was prepared to stick my neck out and use F/A to choose a
> turning
point. If I had been wrong so-be-it. But at that price
($1.25)
it
> was a gamble worth taking in my
judgement.
>
> >
> >Snoopy, we have had this same
discussion time after time after time.
> >We could just as easily be
talking about WHS or TLS. Same story.
> Same
> >arguments. Same
entrenched positions. Same consequences. I
> despair.
>
>
>
> Consequences like those dividends keeping on flowing in
and
> increasing you mean, and the apparently severe share price
corrections
> not being as bad as everyone thought ;-)?
>
>
SNOOPY
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
> Message sent by Snoopy
> on Pegasus Mail version 4.02
>
----------------------------------
> "Q: If you call a dog tail a leg,
how many legs does a dog have?"
> "A: Four. Calling a tail a leg
doesn't make it a leg."
>
>
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
>
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
> http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To
remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/chat/forum/
|
See IRG research reports
