SET

Could someone post a link to SET charts? Perhaps list of top traded issues, local market news.... Do you use any special trading software to track your stocks intraday moves? Any mutual funds (US term) for SET issues? I'd like to see more on fundamentals of some of the "high quality" Thais issues.

I enjoy this link. People have widely different approaches to making money in the markets, no one is right all the time, no tool works for every job. But it is very interesting game, I enjoy it in US, and wouldn't mind playing with some "fun money" here in Thailand.

Respect!

Here are a few links to keep anyone active for a while:

A good starting point: ttp://www.set.or.th/en/index.html

Top Ten: The Stock Exchange of Thailand: Market Data - Top 10

Unrelated to SET, but worth a visit: Financial Sense Online

Metals: Kitco - Gold Precious Metals - Buy Gold Sell Gold, Silver, Platinum - Charts, Graphs, Prices, Quotes, Gold Stocks, Mining Stocks, bullion dealers

Tisco: https://www.tiscoetrade.com/Tisco/login.jsp

Kim Eng (KEST) - ttp://www.kimeng.co.th/index.asp?TorE=E

Kelive (Kim Eng): Kelive

Phillips (Poems): POEMS (Phillip's On-line Electronic Mart System) - INVEST LIKE A PRO

US, but useful links and resources: TradingDay.com - After Hours Trading - Pre-Market Trading

Tsec: TSEC - tsecstock.com

Chart School: StockCharts.com - Simply the Web's Best Stock Charts

Useful info + resources incl BDI: InvestmentTools.com

Financial Sense Online

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

This 10% rule is new to me - absolute bullocks, IMHO! If you have done you research, and are confident a company has potential, an unfounded 10% drop in share price actually makes the stock cheaper to aquire, hence you should consider buying more.

What you need to keep in mind is that share prices often drop even though there is nothing wrong with the firms prospects. Payments of dividends is a good example.

---

WS: You are clearly experienced and have your own trading/investing principles and habits. Only, I honestly do not understand your comments because I cannot see how in the normal course of trading a stock can drop 10% without dropping 10%. It either drops or it does not, and if it does but on account of a divi, then the value of that divi goes into the plus column, against any fall.

---

I think you have missed my point, keda, which is simply that a drop in share prices in itself is no cause to panic. By the time you are able to react, it is normally too late to get out anyway, so it is better to sit put. If the fundamentals of the stock remains sound, it will probably rebound.

And for the record, a stock that drops 10% does drop 10%. Never claimed anything else.

And while I am sure daytrading can be fun, it is not something I would advise anyone to get into. Look for long-term trends, don't invest more than you can afford to lose, and last, but not least, be cool.:cool:

Sorry if I came across as a bit aggressive earlier on - you have started a good thread, and I am sure opinions on the subject differ - which is what makes it worthwhile discussing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

To put it simply - the value of a stick is simply the NPV of expected future dividends, so naturally when a company pays dividends the share value will be reduced - this is not exactly rocket science.

---

Well, that's not exactly why the stock is going down. Nobody is using NPV of Dividends to value a stock. Only the bond market do that with interests payments. The name of the game in Equity is EPS, not dividends.

---

So how would you then determine the value of a share?:cool:

OK - look at it this way: If you knew (with 100% certainty!) that a particular company would never go bankrupt, would always turn a profit, but said company has stated that it would never pay any dividends to its shareholders, would you buy its stock?

My guess is not, since you would never be rewarded for the company's success, and therefore the actual value of the shares are zero. Despite positive EPS! :1st:

Short-term fluctuations in a share's price is determined by supply and demand, but the overall mechanism that determines the value is (I repeat) the NPV of all future dividends. Any economist will tell you so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

OK - look at it this way: If you knew (with 100% certainty!) that a particular company would never go bankrupt, would always turn a profit, but said company has stated that it would never pay any dividends to its shareholders, would you buy its stock?

---

Yes I would :D

Mainly because you are buying success with a chance to be rewarded by making a capital gain. Look at MST, never really paid any dividends until they were pressured by outsiders and they had too much cash in their vault (they have their own bank). Until then, their stock have been doing great and so was the company profits, not to mention the owners. Buyers are not paying premium with growth stocks like GOOGLE and MST for their dividends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

My guess is not, since you would never be rewarded for the company's success, and therefore the actual value of the shares are zero. Despite positive EPS!

---

In theory and academically yes. But that's not what is happening in the real world. Most buyers are looking at P/E when buying stocks, which is your "yield" in terms of EPS instead of Dividends. High P/E means growth stocks, which means buyers are taking bets that the company future success will reward them with capital gains. That's all there is. You can't discount the value of a stock base solely on Dividends, because if you did, most of the stocks in the US, and in all other markets, would not be more than a few pennies per share. With stocks like GOOGLE that trades at P/E above 300, it means that it will take 300 years for the company to payback investors with their earnings. Dividends is not even in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Short-term fluctuations in a share's price is determined by supply and demand, but the overall mechanism that determines the value is (I repeat) the NPV of all future dividends. Any economist will tell you so.

---

Well economists are not market players, and would probably be the worst predictors in terms of market directions and trends. Let alone they have a hard time predicting the economy, I don't see how they could predict anything in the equity market, since there is little correlation and consistency between economic performance and stock market performance. If you meant "financial" academics, then yes, SOME of them would use as an example the NPV of dividends in their cursus, but would hardly tell you that this is THE way to value a company share. There are maybe thousands of stock market theories, and the NPV of dividends is one among many that have been proved to have little to do with reality. You could argue that it should be that way in theory, but that's not how the market see it. Neverless it's an interesting debate.

I am not a fan of Paul Renaud or Thaistocks.com, and certainly wouldn't recommend payment of his extortionate $980 fee for the dubious privilege of becoming a member.

That said, and given this article is nearly 3 years old, it seems current in regard to broker and punter mindset, explains why SET is so volatile if not fickle, and castigates excessive if not compulsive daytrading that can nudge the traditional researcher into confusion. It also bemoans the 'this is how it is because this is how it's supposed to be' mentality, and that little is being done to promote a more rational (if markets can be called rational) approach to longer than short-term plays.

http://www.thaistocks.com/index.php?...rticle&sid=564

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keda

I am not a fan of Paul Renaud or Thaistocks.com, and certainly wouldn't recommend payment of his extortionate $980 fee for the dubious privilege of becoming a member.

---

agree ;)

why woud anyone pay 1k to post on a forum. Sounds like a Thaivisa business plan :p

My old favourite JAS moved up well yesterday and also on good volume after a period scratching its toot; now looking good, some serious res at around 0.58-.60, but if it breaks through this we could see a major run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keda

My old favourite JAS moved up well yesterday and also on good volume after a period scratching its toot; now looking good, some serious res at around 0.58-.60, but if it breaks through this we could see a major run.

---

Sounds like Keda is long this stock already and trying to get you all in or is he just a nice guy and being helpfull :dev+ang:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

OK - look at it this way: If you knew (with 100% certainty!) that a particular company would never go bankrupt, would always turn a profit, but said company has stated that it would never pay any dividends to its shareholders, would you buy its stock?

---

Yes I would :D Mainly because you are buying success with a chance to be rewarded by making a capital gain.

---

Exactly! And how exactly would you make a capital gain? – by receiving your part of the profits, aka (drum roll) dividends! Or – you may sell the share at a profit, because the buyer has a more optimistic view of the potential future rewards (dividends) than you have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Look at MST, never really paid any dividends until they were pressured by outsiders and they had too much cash in their vault (they have their own bank). Until then, their stock have been doing great and so was the company profits, not to mention the owners. Buyers are not paying premium with growth stocks like GOOGLE and MST for their dividends.

---

So then why are they buying them? OF course they are buying the stock for the potential for receiving their share of the firms profits – dividends!!!!! Or – because they believe they can sell these shares to a higher price in the future because at that time the expected NPV of all future earnings has increased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

My guess is not, since you would never be rewarded for the company's success, and therefore the actual value of the shares are zero. Despite positive EPS!

---

In theory and academically yes. But that's not what is happening in the real world. Most buyers are looking at P/E when buying stocks, which is your "yield" in terms of EPS instead of Dividends. High P/E means growth stocks, which means buyers are taking bets that the company future success will reward them with capital gains. That's all there is. You can't discount the value of a stock base solely on Dividends, because if you did, most of the stocks in the US, and in all other markets, would not be more than a few pennies per share. With stocks like GOOGLE that trades at P/E above 300, it means that it will take 300 years for the company to payback investors with their earnings. Dividends is not even in the game.

---

Listen to yourself – “buyers are taking bets that the company future success will reward them with capital gains” and “Dividends is not even in the game”. Sounds to me like you are contradicting yourself.:)
How will you be rewarded if not for dividends? By liquidating the company and sharing the spoils?:cool:
Google trades highly now because investors are confident that despite the current low earnings, the future profits (and dividends) will be enormous.

And furthermore, a P/E in itself does not necessarily mean anything. E.g. a high P/E may mean that the company is doing well, but it could equally well mean that the stock is overvalued and due for a correction. If you base your investment decisions solely on P/E you are living dangerously.

Finally - if share prices are based on P/E, how do you account for the fall in a firms share price every time a dividend is paid? The earnings certainly don't change...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Short-term fluctuations in a share's price is determined by supply and demand, but the overall mechanism that determines the value is (I repeat) the NPV of all future dividends. Any economist will tell you so.

---

Well economists are not market players, and would probably be the worst predictors in terms of market directions and trends. Let alone they have a hard time predicting the economy, I don't see how they could predict anything in the equity market, since there is little correlation and consistency between economic performance and stock market performance.

---

For a day trader, this is perhaps true, but for long-term investment, there certainly is, a correlation between performance and stock prices. A company showing good results will normally see its stock price rise, provided the expectations are that the trend will continue. Be aware though, that increasing share prices can also be a result of a bubble or speculators driving the price up. Which is why it is important to focus on more than simply P/E.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

If you meant "financial" academics, then yes, SOME of them would use as an example the NPV of dividends in their cursus, but would hardly tell you that this is THE way to value a company share. There are maybe thousands of stock market theories, and the NPV of dividends is one among many that have been proved to have little to do with reality.

---

I would love to see that proof! Are you saying that the entire field of discounted cash flow isnow dead?

Ok – let’s play another little mind game, two in fact:

1) A company makes great yearly profits, but donates it all to charity, and will always continue to do so. How do you determine the share price?

Answer - the share value is zero. No dividends paid, and no chance to get your hands on the firms money.

2) A company has stated that it will go out of business in 10 years time, and will pay all share holders yearly dividends of a dollar per share over this time, and then fold up with no residue value left in the firm. How do you determine the value?

Answer - Calculate the NPV of the future dividends. At the end of the first year, one dollar will be paid, and the share price drops with the reduction of NPV of the remaining dividends.

I think you will see that the only main difference between bonds and shares are that shares are much more unpredictable. That increases the risk, but also the potential for pay-back.

breezer:

Quote:

---

Sounds like Keda is long this stock already and trying to get you all in or is he just a nice guy and being helpfull

---

Nope, when I am not using my iron you can borrow it anytime, if you promise not to nick the plug.

I do not own a single share of JAS (0.52), but reckon it could do exceedingly well, and certainly better than last Nov/Jan performance, once it moves through that crucial res at .58 - .60.

My port is void also of BLAND (0.83), another old favourite, which has been creeping up since 01 Nov and yesterday started a run that could see it better it's previous high on the way to triple digits. Haven't checked but imagine some mild res around .88 - .90.

Note also, PDI was for a while wandering listlessly between 35-40 in the face of a steep rise in zinc prices. It finally started moving up but only since the beginning of this month, up some 15% at 45.00 with a lot of life in it yet; my blind guess is it will hit 50 with no sweat, and 55 on this run should be possible. Not a rumour of PDI in my port.

Never fear dips (as opposed to reversal signals) on an upward trend, which may be profit taking.

Good luck, and don't forget your DD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Exactly! And how exactly would you make a capital gain? – by receiving your part of the profits, aka (drum roll) dividends! Or – you may sell the share at a profit, because the buyer has a more optimistic view of the potential future rewards (dividends) than you have.

---

Dividends is not a measure of success for a stock. Actually it's the other way around. Some low performers have been known to pay huge dividends to "compensate" investors for the low performance or to fool "naive" investors into thinking that the company will keep paying dividends. If you are looking for hot stocks, you don't look for dividends payout. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

So then why are they buying them? OF course they are buying the stock for the potential for receiving their share of the firms profits – dividends!!!!! Or – because they believe they can sell these shares to a higher price in the future because at that time the expected NPV of all future earnings has increased.

---

Nope. But I note that you switched to NPV of all future earnings, instead of dividends. That's the right direction.You are getting there. Investors are motivated by earnings and that's how they price a stock. The exact method is different for each investor then, not the universal NPV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Listen to yourself – “buyers are taking bets that the company future success will reward them with capital gains” and “Dividends is not even in the game”. Sounds to me like you are contradicting yourself.

---

No contradiction. You are just having a hard time understanding what I am saying :D and reconciling those "apparent" differences. Success is defined by growth in Earnings, not dividends payout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Google trades highly now because investors are confident that despite the current low earnings, the future profits (and dividends) will be enormous.

---

Nope, again. Why would you buy now then ? it will take 300 years for them to payback at that price with a 100% dividend payout ? not likely to happen. So obviously people are buying for other reasons than the dividends. Case in point. Solved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

And furthermore, a P/E in itself does not necessarily mean anything. E.g. a high P/E may mean that the company is doing well, but it could equally well mean that the stock is overvalued and due for a correction. If you base your investment decisions solely on P/E you are living dangerously.

---

Yes and no. This is matter to debate actually. P/E can have different meaning, growth stocks and also overvalued stocks. Usually the market can get pretty efficient so yes, a growth stock will tend to be overvalued. But P/E is not the only parameter you look at when you trade stocks. There are dozens, sometimes hundreds parameters that you will take into consideration to price your stock. Dividends might be or might not be in it. But the simple NPV of dividends will definitely not be in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Finally - if share prices are based on P/E, how do you account for the fall in a firms share price every time a dividend is paid? The earnings certainly don't change...

---

Read my comments above about company going ex-dividend. It's a mechanical effect but it's not based on NPV of any sort. Check the SET website, I think there is a section on company going ex (XD)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

For a day trader, this is perhaps true, but for long-term investment, there certainly is, a correlation between performance and stock prices.

---

Actually a number of studies have been published on this topic and this is still debated. The problem is measurement. How do you accurately measure stock performance and economic performance. The conclusions so far seems to point to interest rates. The lower interest rates, the better the stock market. This has been true for the last 25 years, but it wasn't always true for other periods. Above well when we switch from a demand-side monetary policy to a supply-side monetary policy. Since those had a direct effect on interest rates and economic performance, it's not surprise that their effects have been different on the stock market, above all when monetary policy in the past were totally ineffective. So the debate is still out there. But one thing for sure, it's not uniform and the performance of the economy and stock market are not uniformly linked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

I would love to see that proof! Are you saying that the entire field of discounted cash flow isnow dead?

---

For stocks ? yes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

I think you will see that the only main difference between bonds and shares are that shares are much more unpredictable. That increases the risk, but also the potential for pay-back.

---

There is a world of difference between bonds and stocks. They don't react the same way, even though interest rates is playing a major role now in the stock market for the last 25 years. Pricing a bond is easy because it's mechanical, and therefore the market is pretty efficient. This is not true of the stock market. Because there is no pricing model (the NPV of dividends is Finance 101 academic illustration, aka BS), investors bid for stocks based on a number of factors, usually revolving around EPS numbers and other I/S items or B/S items.

See it's not that easy. If it was, the market would be efficient and all stocks would be trading around $1 if your NPV of dividends was used as THE pricing model of stocks. Try the NPV method and see for yourself :D

OK – last round, then I pull the plug on this sub-thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Exactly! And how exactly would you make a capital gain? – by receiving your part of the profits, aka (drum roll) dividends! Or – you may sell the share at a profit, because the buyer has a more optimistic view of the potential future rewards (dividends) than you have.

---

Dividends is not a measure of success for a stock. Actually it's the other way around. Some low performers have been known to pay huge dividends to "compensate" investors for the low performance or to fool "naive" investors into thinking that the company will keep paying dividends. If you are looking for hot stocks, you don't look for dividends payout. Period..

---

Yes you do, but you look at the accumulated value of all anticipated future dividends, not simply at a one-off high (or low) pay-out, (which BTW is destined to have a reverse effect on future dividends). If a company was capable of "compensating" me consistently despite low performence I would have no problem holding on to their stock (although I am not quite sure how they would go about achieving this....;) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

So then why are they buying them? OF course they are buying the stock for the potential for receiving their share of the firms profits – dividends!!!!! Or – because they believe they can sell these shares to a higher price in the future because at that time the expected NPV of all future earnings has increased.

---

Nope. But I note that you switched to NPV of all future earnings, instead of dividends. That's the right direction.You are getting there. Investors are motivated by earnings and that's how they price a stock. The exact method is different for each investor then, not the universal NPV.

---

So what other future earnings do you factor in apart from dividends? Free lunches at shareholders meetings?:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Listen to yourself – “buyers are taking bets that the company future success will reward them with capital gains” and “Dividends is not even in the game”. Sounds to me like you are contradicting yourself.

---

No contradiction. You are just having a hard time understanding what I am saying :D and reconciling those "apparent" differences. Success is defined by growth in Earnings.

---

Is it now? OK, for arguments sake, let's say so, but unless you get your hands on those earnings, they are not worth anything, right? A company can make all the profit in the world, but unless there is a chance that these profits tickle down to the shareholders, the shares are worthless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Google trades highly now because investors are confident that despite the current low earnings, the future profits (and dividends) will be enormous.

---

Nope, again. Why would you buy now then ? it will take 300 years for them to payback at that price with a 100% dividend payout ? not likely to happen. So obviously people are buying for other reasons than the dividends. Case in point. Solved.

---

Where do you get these numbers from? What you need to understand is that a share price does neither reflect the company’s current position nor its current profitability. All that matters is the perceived future performance of the firm, how the shareholders are rewarded by this performance, minus inflation. In other words, the NPV of expected future dividends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Finally - if share prices are based on P/E, how do you account for the fall in a firms share price every time a dividend is paid? The earnings certainly don't change...

---

Read my comments above about company going ex-dividend. It's a mechanical effect but it's not based on NPV of any sort. Check the SET website, I think there is a section on company going ex (XD)

---

No need, I receive dividends all the time, and I know exactly what effect they have on the share prices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

For a day trader, this is perhaps true, but for long-term investment, there certainly is, a correlation between performance and stock prices.

---

Actually a number of studies have been published on this topic and this is still debated. The problem is measurement. How do you accurately measure stock performance and economic performance. The conclusions so far seems to point to interest rates. The lower interest rates, the better the stock market. This has been true for the last 25 years, but it wasn't always true for other periods. Above well when we switch from a demand-side monetary policy to a supply-side monetary policy. Since those had a direct effect on interest rates and economic performance, it's not surprise that their effects have been different on the stock market, above all when monetary policy in the past were totally ineffective. So the debate is still out there. But one thing for sure, it's not uniform and the performance of the economy and stock market are not uniformly linked.

---

I am quite familiar with macro-economics and its effects on the market, but I fail to see why you bring that up in a discussion on the link between performance and stock prices. Sure it has an effect on business, but so do many other parameters. The point is simply that unless the market is strongly convinced of a firms future prospects, it is unlikely to want to invest in it. Surely this should not be too controversial?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

I would love to see that proof! Are you saying that the entire field of discounted cash flow is now dead?

---

For stocks ? yes

---

Well then what would you base your predictions on? Financial ratios like P/E will give you nothing but a snapshot of a firms current status. Thus one would, even if one knew what the future held, have bought shares in companies that produced photographic film (e.g. Kodak, Fuji) a few years back, when they were profitable. And one would never have bought shares in Microsoft when it first started, because it wasn’t very profitable initially!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

I think you will see that the only main difference between bonds and shares are that shares are much more unpredictable. That increases the risk, but also the potential for pay-back.

---

There is a world of difference between bonds and stocks. They don't react the same way, even though interest rates is playing a major role now in the stock market for the last 25 years. Pricing a bond is easy because it's mechanical, and therefore the market is pretty efficient. This is not true of the stock market.

---

Which is pretty much exactly what I said, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

See it's not that easy. If it was, the market would be efficient and all stocks would be trading around $1 if your NPV of dividends was used as THE pricing model of stocks. Try the NPV method and see for yourself :D

---

I never said it was easy. There are two problems, first to determine what interest rate to use, but the critical factor is trying to quantify the firms future earnings.
However, I fail to see how you arrive at your conclusion above. Even if a company went bankrupt next week, but was going to pay a dividend of 100$ per share tomorrow, the NPV of the accumulated future earnings would be 100$. After the dividend is paid, the stock value is zero. I honestly cannot understand why it is so hard for you to grasp this.

Also – how do you reconcile your two statements above

Quote:

---

Usually the market can get pretty efficient

---

With

Quote:

---

Pricing a bond is easy because it's mechanical, and therefore the market is pretty efficient. This is not true of the stock market

---

Is it or isn’t it? :cool:

I also noted that you completely ignored my little mind game, so I will repeat it:

Quote:

---

1) A company makes great yearly profits, but donates it all to charity, and will always continue to do so. How do you determine the share price?

Answer - the share value is zero. No dividends paid, and no chance to get your hands on the firms money.

2) A company has stated that it will go out of business in 10 years time, and will pay all share holders yearly dividends of a dollar per share over this time, and then fold up with no residue value left in the firm. How do you determine the value?

Answer - Calculate the NPV of the future dividends. At the end of the first year, one dollar will be paid, and the share price drops with the reduction of NPV of the remaining dividends.

---

If you agree with this, how can you possibly claim that 1) share prices reflect profitability, and 2) that the discounted cash flow model is dead?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butterfly

(the NPV of dividends is Finance 101 academic illustration, aka BS),

---

OK, if you call basic financial theory BS, then I don’t know if there is any chance of finding any common ground between us. Perhaps you should publish your stock market theory – if what you claim is true, there should be a trip to Stockholm for you in the near future…..:1st:

BTW - have you even taken Finance 101 or anything equivalent?

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Which is pretty much exactly what I said, right?

---

No, you said that pricing was more difficult to predict implying that the NPV of dividends would still give you a clue on that pricing. I am saying that it's impossible to "price" a stock the way it is accurately done for the bond market, which is primarly through NPV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Also – how do you reconcile your two statements above

---

See answer above. The bond market is by definition efficient because everyone is using the same pricing model. Which is not true of the equity market. Nobody is using the NPV of dividends to "price" a stock, except maybe for WS :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

I also noted that you completely ignored my little mind game, so I will repeat it:

---

It's irrelevant. Maybe in an academic debate, and even then your answer or my answer would be liable to interpretations and other academic topics. Pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

OK, if you call basic financial theory BS

---

Ok, maybe BS was a bit of a strong word. Academic example for illustration purposes doesn't mean it's real. Academics use "illustration" to make a point, doesn't mean this illustration is any real. The NPV of dividends is one academic way of looking at a stock value. But in reality, NO serious and even institutional investors look at that model. If they would, they would be in trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

BTW - have you even taken Finance 101 or anything equivalent?

---

Yes, I went up to Finance 505 :p and even going for my CFA soon :bunny3:

Hey, this is a fun debate actually, much better than talking about stupid resistance level on a stock price.

Can't get the 'return' key and some other characters to work, but will edit for easier reading if/when the gremlin leaves. - - Update, not forgetting JAS, PDI and BLAND from last week: - - TPIPL (13.90) met strong res at 14.50 and retreated, but another runup due. - - NSM (0.40) still on simmer, moving slowly in the right direction, patience should pay off. - - New addition: MPT (2.32) - been moving up, and looks like a way to go. - - SET expected (60-40) to correct by a couple %, but end of year rally still on the cards. - - Good luck, and DD.

it's earnings season so stocks are moving. Always like that. And then it will revert back to a lethargic state until next season.

Hey WS, we are not done, where are you ? :D

Forgot to add something about your NPV arguments:

- duration: you can't use an indefinite duration for NPV, unlike Bonds that have a finite duration, how do you resolve stocks duration in your NPV calculation ? you can't, not even with a theorical holding period, since that would differ from investors to investors, and you can't assume one.

- Discount rate: again, which discount rate do you use since you have no definite duration ? Interest rates differ with the borrowing terms and duration, how do you pick the right interest rates ? Prime rate, T-notes, T-Bond, inflation ? which one ?

This is just a few examples of why market players and even market strategists are not using NPV. As an academic illustration, a nice little "proxy", but in reality, it doesn't happen. Another example of an academic illustration that doesn't exist in the real world: the moon is made of swiss cheese :D

Line spacing has returned. Great.

Has anybody actually bought or thinking to buy anything, or any thoughts or ideas or questions at all? No plobrem, no hurry, they'll come in time.

To avoid any later misunderstanding, will be moving into JAS today, hopefully at 0.51.

i would not ber arsed trading individual stocks buy or sell the set :D

I invested in SET rather than individual stocks since shortly after the crash, did well enough and still hold a bunch of units at 10+ that were bought all the way from 3 to 5.

I have been following some of the stocks mentioned here, and here are my thoughts.

Tried to get in on PRECHA during its run but it was too fast and I missed out. It touched 2.88 before sliding back almost as fast as it rose, so a lot of people made some easy cash in a few minutes. Note also it did the classic shakeout prior to its run, falling back 5% before lurching forward, and then back to norm as though nothing happened. Traders should track it because it could repeat.

NWR is doing very well and looks like it has a way to go before settling down, but it should hit 1.00 and 1.20 is on the cards. Very good call, already up 50%+ in the past month.

NSM, which has been much touted here, does look good but it seems lost right now and will have to close safely at .41 for at least a couple of days before it can be considered a breakout, then it could easily double. A few thoughts here: 3 years ago it was 3.94, then down down down and it collapsed 90% by May this year, but since May it started to move in a narrow horizontal band for more than 6 months, and for the first time in its history - serious consolidation. But if as some analysts claim the company is losing money why doesn't the price go down more, to 0.30, 0.20, or even to 0.10? - reports are not always reliable. Also tracking its day to day trading patterns and may be wrong but it looks like big hands are at work and a breakout is certain, so I will buy with a tight stop when it touches 0.41, with little to lose and much to gain.

JAS, not impressed, seems sluggish, and my advice is to wait a while till it goes to at least .55, after which .70 or even .85 is fair though it could go further, but it could also fall back to 0.45, so keep a tight stop. BLAND is a better bet, moved up quite a bit in the past month, still looking strong with a way to go.

Thanks for TPIPL, more good money to be made and I only looked at it when it was mentioned here, bought in at 11 before its run then sold half at 15.30 and the rest at 15.10. Now 13.60 and it should return to 25 dma which is around 12-12.50 before its next run. That should take it to 19-20 but not in one go but probably with one more retrace on the way, probably around 16-17. For the novice it is time to consider an entry when it drops below 13, then sit back and enjoy but don't worry if it drops a bit more, and for the more experienced follow it closely when it falls below 13, and likely 12.50 for a more profitable entry point.

MLINK, already did well, now should return to around 1.96-2.00 before its next run, then resistance will be 2.25-2.30.

GSTEEL won't return to its IPO price for a while yet but right now it's seriously undervalued, has a low downside because it's already resting on major support, and a good choice to rake in a slow but consistent return. It tends to move slowly, nothing fancy, no fireworks with 20-30% rises in a day, but I will put my neck out with 1.15-1.20 by year end.

For small risk-takers, STA is likely to rebound. Now 14.00 but should soon see 16-17, possibly more.

TMB looks interesting for traders, and also for medium to longterm investors.

Last but not least, patient long term investors happy to wait for their return should get into PTT, now at 2.20. Divi around 5%, and looks like it can only go up from here so you can take another 15-30% on top of this. Not mentioned here before but a good choice for safe profit.

Back after a couple of weeks, expected a better response considering the performance of stocks mentioned here to date but it seems there is little interest.

So, is anybody actually investing who wasn't before?
Has anybody got their feet wet on the strength of this thread, or taken or riding a profit from what's been mentioned here?
Have any of those who were already investing been following these tips?

If so, let's have some feedback, and if not, will allow this thread to drop into oblivion, which seems where it was headed despite overall performance that most traders and investors would gladly pay for.

I made a shit load on Agripure last year. It went up over 400% in 2 weeks until the SET guys woke up and stepped in. :)

APURE was a classic, but greed took over and the goons actually spotted dick. Still, there are always runners in various stages of prep.

Aside from those already mentioned, take a look at EPCO, MPT, TMB, all cooking, and of course still going strong are NWR (res 1.25-1.30) and TPIPL (res 15.50-16.00).

I see they're making a pig's ear of things again...


SET will temporarily halt trading due to Circuit Breaker

As the SET index decrease by 74.06 points (10.14%) of prior
index close, in accordance with its authority under Clause 15
of the SET Regulation on Trading, Clearing and Settlement for
Listed Securities (No.2), 1999 specified that

In the case that the SET Index changes within the authorized scale,
the trading system will suspend all tradings in the following cases
and for the following period:

1. In the case where the SET Index in any day decreases by 10%
of the SET Index on the immediately preceding trading day,
the trading system will suspend for 30 minutes.

2. In the case where the SET Index in any day decreases by 20%
of the SET Index on the immediately preceding trading day,
the trading system will suspend for one hour.

Therefore the SET will temporarily halt trading for 30 minutes
during 11.29 AM. - 11.59 AM. The trading system will pre-open again
at 11.49 AM and open at 11.59 AM.

News Detail

Welcome to yesterday

See News in Thailand section for more details