Showing posts with label finance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label finance. Show all posts

Sunday, August 21, 2011

5 Reasons Gold Bubble Might Pop Soon:

When will gold pop already?
The higher gold climbs the more intense the debate between bulls and bears, those who think the yellow metal has a long way to run and those who say this is a giant bubble that is going to pop, and soon.Here are five reasons the bears are calling the current run of gold -- up 27 percent since Jan. 1 -- a bubble, and thus something to avoid.

1. Basic economics. The World Gold Council in a recent study said that in the second quarter total global demand for gold declined 17 percent, on a year-over-year basis. But despite that decline the price of gold rose about 25 percent. At some point supply and demand have to come back into balance, say the bears, and when they do it would be best to be out of gold.

2. If it looks like a bubble ... "People believe that gold is a hedge against uncertain times. In the long run, gold prices have kept pace with inflation. People are flocking to it", says Lloyd Thomas, an economics professor at Kansas State University. "But in 2000 the price of gold was $300 an ounce. It has gone up six-fold since then, and it might go up higher than what it is right now. It's gone up too fast -- it's a bubble." 
Thomas compares the current gold market to the U.S. housing market. People believed, as they believe now for gold, that the housing prices would continue to increase. But ultimately, they fell more than 30 percent in most 
American cities.


"The same thing could happen to gold; it's not risk-free. In the last 10 years it's gone up 17 percent a year, but the price of things we purchase has only gone up 3 percent a year. That's unsustainable. It's my own opinion that gold prices will collapse -- I just don't know when", he says.

3. Soros has left the building. Billionaire George Soros as well as Eric Mindich cut their holdings in the SPDR Gold Trust, an exchange-traded fund, in the second quarter as prices rallied. You may not understand algorithms, econometrics or 200-day moving averages, but almost anyone can imitate winners.
Major professional money managers are also starting to get worried. Wells Fargo is warning its clients, including wealthy ones, that gold is grossly overbought, a "bubble that is poised to burst." Said Wells Fargo analyst Dean Junkans: "We have seen the economic damage" of past bubbles and "feel compelled to ring the warning bells."
"There could be substantial risk to gold once the fear that the world is coming to an end subsides," Junkans told Reuters in a telephone interview from Minneapolis. "We are worried about the downward risk."

4. Investor naivete. "Trees don't grow till heaven. I think buyers need to be beware we are in a 'caveat emptor' market," Jeffrey Rhodes, global head of precious metals at INTL FCStone, a brokerage, told Reuters.
"My problem is that people are buying gold and they don't understand why they are buying gold and that's a big problem and that is a classic symptom of a bubble," said Rhodes.

5. What is your pain tolerance? Even if you don't think gold is a bubble, it certainly is a bull market, and bull markets often end dirty and messy, and take years to recover from. Think the U.S. real estate collapse and all the attendant carnage that erupted in 2008 and still hasn't been repaired, among homeowners or bankers. The same could be said of property markets in Ireland and Great Britain.




Want to hedge against the Gold Standard? Try trading binary options.  


Thanks to the source for the article on Gold Ready To Pop

Monday, August 1, 2011

Trading Binary Options VS Casino bets

Are binary options like gambling?

 

I have heard several times from people that when you are buying and selling Binary Options, your are basically gambling. While this may be the case for some people who have addiction issues, they are both quite different. 

Casino games are based on luck and binary trading is based on real market conditions. This is not to say that casino's don't also involve skill or that binary trading doesn't experience luck, but the basis for the trades and exchanges of the two are very different. 


The thing is that casino games are designed for users to win in order to keep them entertained and binary trading are based on which ever direction the market swings, So not sure which one is better.




Thursday, July 28, 2011

The Art of Conscious Investing - a Brian Zen Article

The central point of conscious investing is to be acutely aware of where the intrinsic value is and where it is going. Trained as a mathematician, Dr. John Price programmed, tested and compared over 30 different stock valuation methods in his search for the best approaches. This led to the development of investment software called Conscious Investor®. It also led to his recent book “The Conscious Investor: Profiting from the Timeless Value Approach” (Wiley, 2011) in which he described the assumptions along with the strengths and weaknesses of various valuation methods.

Here as a follow-up of Gurufocus.com’s interview with him, Dr. Price continues explain the finer points of conscious value calculations.

Q: Warren Buffett once summarized Ben Graham's teachings into the three cornerstones of sound investing? What would you say if you were to summarize conscious investing into a few fundamental ideas?

A: My basic framework for conscious investing is that we need to do three things.

1. We need to have a measure of value. (I mean value per share, but I won’t keep saying “per share.”) It could be assets, equity (book value), earnings, dividends, free cash flow, enterprise value, etc. Or it could be a combination of these.

2. We need to be able to make statements such as: In N years (say, 5 years) I am confident that the level of this value will be at least $x.

3. We need to be able to make statements such as: “In five years I am confident that the market will pay me at least $y for every dollar of value.”

With this done, I can then conclude that I am confident that a single share will be worth $xy in 5 years. I can also figure out my expected return if I buy a share today. On top of this, I might get extra profit from dividends.

As investors we do not like negative surprises in levels of value, but we love positive surprises. So we are trying to specify a level $x so that we are confident that future value at the specified time will be at or above that level.

I am not saying this is easy. This is where all the information about the company comes in. Debt levels, stability of growth, economic moat, etc. The more doubt you have, make your estimate of $x lower. It is like Buffett’s quote when he says he want companies whose “earnings are virtually certain to be materially higher, five, ten, and twenty years from now.”

In addition, as investors, we do not like negative surprises in any estimates of what the market will pay for this value. So this time we choose a level $y so that we are confident that the market will pay at least this much for every dollar of value.

If you base your investment on the projection that $y will be materially higher in the future than it is now (without too much growth assumptions of $x), you are usually called a value investor.

As an example, suppose that our measurement of value is in terms of book value. A desirable investment would be a company that the market is currently paying a low price for its book value. Consider BRK. Over the past 25 years the price to book ratio has ranged from a lows of 1.17 and 1.19 to a highs of 2.02 and 2.23. Currently it is around 1.20.

Now we have to make projections for the value the market will pay for the book value of BRK. Let us be conservative and suppose that we are confident that book value will be at the same level or higher in one year. In other words, there is no growth in book value. Also suppose we are confident that the market will pay 1.35 per dollar of book value in one year. This means that we are saying that the price of BRK will rise by at least 12.5% over the next year. (This is the growth from 1.20 to 1.35.)

Alternatively, if you base your investment on the projection that $x will be materially higher in the future (without too much consideration of $y), you are usually called a growth investor.

Of course, as most people will be aware, Buffett and others said that restricting yourself to value or growth investing was unwise since all investing involves finding value. Buffett said: “We think the term ‘value investing’ is redundant. What is ‘investing’ if it is not the act of seeking value at least sufficient to justify the amount paid?”

Q: The expected return method seems to rely on future earnings projections and the terminal value at the end of the projection period. Many believe those projections are less reliable than asset value and replacement value. What do you think?

A: In the framework I described, it is up to you to choose which measurement of value you use. I agree that asset value is more reliable at each point in time. But you still have to factor in the market’s reaction to asset value. In other words, how much it is willing to pay for asset value? If you think that the market is currently undervaluing a stock in terms of assets, you have to make a projection that in the future the market will pay a higher value for the assets in the future. You also have to make a projection about the growth of the assets.

I use earnings. There are many reasons. The main one is that this is the core aim of (most) businesses, namely to grow their earnings. Even levels of management bonuses are often based on growth of earnings. For good reason earnings or net profit are referred to as the bottom line.

However, it is possible to use other measurements. For example, book value is used in the BRK case above.

Q: Dr. Price, your method places a very high priority on predictability of earnings and revenue. Do you think the market will ever go through extended periods of time (4+ years) where you could lose money because the stable equities are priced too high? Thanks!

A: Absolutely. There are always overall market cycles with times when “the market” could lose money. This is why it is better to focus on individual companies, rather than “the market.” The market was extraordinarily high around 2000. So since then market indices have done very poorly. But there have still been excellent individual companies.

There are always companies selling at sensible, even bargain, prices. Sometime there are more, sometime there are fewer. But they are there.

In “Beating the Street”, Peter Lynch said: “The key to making money in stocks is not to get scared out of them.” In May 2007 at the Annual Meeting, Buffett said “Something bad will happen, but you could go back at any time in the last 100 years and say the same thing … you can freeze yourself out indefinitely.”

Q: How do your models predict the future by using historical data IF despite consistent historical data the future will not replicate the past? My point being, no matter how great a company's historical data is, the future will only prove to replicate the past et ceteris paribus. Even the largest moats fall over a long enough time span. Oh, and please don't say something like “If company X traded at 15 times earnings historically, I assume it will only trade for 12x earnings to incorporate a margin of safety”. That is not an acceptable answer.

A: I take the position that all investing involves making forecasts or projections. Sometimes these forecasts are more like wishes such as: “The price will be higher in the future than it is now.” Not much help for serious investing.

Other times the forecasts are very mild such as: “The company will be able to sell its assets in the near future for the amounts described in the balance sheet.”

Still other times the forecasts are highly problematical such as in intrinsic value DCF methods: “The growth rate of free cash flow out to infinity will be 3%.” or “The discount rate out to infinity will be 12%.”

In fact, the whole idea of investing is to do something with the anticipation of a particular outcome or range of outcomes in the future. (Of course, for investing I don’t mean forecasts in the usual sense. Rather I mean in the sense of forecasting that a particular level will be reached or better. Also, sometimes the forecasts are implicit and hidden, rather than being explicit. But this is whole other topic.)

If you accept that investing involves making forecasts, then we have to decide what we are going to forecast and for how long. Also, to make these forecasts, of course all we have available is current and historical information. So we have to use this information in the best way that we can. I mostly base my calculations as ultimately heading towards projections about earnings (more particularly, earnings per share).

But, expanding on what I said for an earlier question, for most companies I do not know how to forecast earnings with any reliability. Fortunately, for a few companies because of modest debt levels, stability of growth of sales and earnings, economic moat, quality management, and so on, I think that it is possible to set out steps to be able to make statements with reasonable confidence. These are statements such as it is likely that the earnings will grow by at least a certain rate over some specified reasonable time span.

Also, at certain times the market may only be willing to pay a lower price for these earnings. Again, at times I believe that it is possible to make statements such as it is likely that the market will pay a certain level for these earnings at some specified period in the future

Of course, sometimes neither of these outcomes will come about. As you say: “Even the largest moats fall over a long enough time span.”

This is why I have crunched through very large databases over extended periods to check the methods. Also, I try not to rely on time spans that are too long. And having done all this, I introduce margins of safety calculated using computer algorithms.

Of course there are no guarantees. But all the assumptions are testable. And for me, at least, they provide a rational framework which has proved to be successful.


About the author:
Brian Zen, CFA, PhD, is Founder and Chief Investment Counsel of Zenway Group, a New York-based registered investment advisory firm that brings unique, next-generation financial intelligence to families and businesses. Through face-to-face coaching, online tutoring, learning parties, research worksheets, and newsletters, Zenway-Certified Financial Tutors teach children and parents the craft of investing and help their families grow wealth. Dr. Zen appreciates your question and feedback at: info (at) zenway.com Visit Dr. Zen's Website