Posted by iafx > 2013-04-06 16:04 | Report Abuse

here's the "good" ppl posting:

Posted by kcchongnz > Apr 6, 2013 09:24 AM | Report Abuse

Posted by 66300 > Apr 5, 2013 07:34 PM | Report Abuse Kcchongnz, you not only have substance but can also play with court jesters. You have my full respect.

66300, thanks for the compliment (I hope it is and that nobody accuses you as my double identity). Actually I have no intention to “play” with court jesters. Like what passerby accuses me of being so free 24/7; gark told me not to waste time on troll; Melvin asked me not to argue with idiot; FCTB asked me to ignore retard etc but that is not the point. I am just acting as a socially responsible citizen of Malaysia. Let me explain. Now you read the statement below:

Posted by iafx > Apr 5, 2013 11:17 AM | Report Abuse hahahahaaa... sorry lah, there is no roe, car, yard sticks lah, wonderwoman table lah, undervalue lah, great growth lah, cold-eye lah, w.buffet lah, graham lah, biz prediction/assumption lah, if here if there, this lah that lah... :D :D :D :D u can easily verified the comment via thestar.com.my, nothing personal, nothing complex, no "home made" report... afterall, market speak for itself - kopitiam view :D

I know lah this statement is aimed at who else but don’t you think it is dangerous especially for newbie trying to get some advice in i3 to invest in the stock market? This is telling others to tikam in the stock market. Seriously for small time retail investors, you can’t beat the insiders and manipulators. So I offer a different view which I think is important, that if one wants to put his hard-earned money at risk, he has to know something about the business of the company, some numbers like ROE, cash flows etc. But see how this fellow tells others when someone asked me to explain ROE that ROE=Net income/Equity:

Posted by iafx > Mar 25, 2013 11:01 AM | Report Abuse shareholder equity is not assets - liabilities, don't mix up ROE to ROTA

Posted by iafx > Mar 25, 2013 01:30 PM | Report Abuse sigh, don't mix up owner equity to shareholder equity, wrong roe calculation can lead to Holland... of cos, not for those with "agenda"

I was trying to explain a very basic concept of accounting important for investment when someone asked me. But why did he said I have “agenda”, and lead others to Holland? By guessing what he has posted above, he is telling others that equity=total assets, and ROE=NI/Total assets. Shouldn’t I correct this as a responsible person so that others not well versed of basic accounting are not misled? People like Desmond Liew laughed and think it is an amusing entertainment, but this to me is a serious matter, you are risking your money and you must know the basic concept.

Each time I try to convey some investment ideas and that fellow said I si-tipu ah, si-roti-canai ah, bullshit ah, trying to promote and sell high to you all ah, cheating ah, terms like taufu lah, stupid lah, “she” lah, “her” lah, “wonderwoman” lah (Hey I got kokotiaw one you know, you got or not?). If I keep quiet all the time, eventually with this brain washing by this guy, everybody would think that I am such a person.

I also need to offer what I think is prudent investing because this fellow’s have been telling others that one absolutely must invest in liquid stocks, stocks covered by many investment houses, Kenanga and Equity Tracker a must. Academic research has shown that extra-ordinary returns are not from those stocks mentioned by him. Investors should understand that what is good for the croupier is not good for the customer.

Well anbz, thanks for the advice but each time this so-called quarrel came up, it was not me who started it off first. I could have stfu and not arguing with this fellow. But I have a bigger picture to look at; i.e. for the greater good of the investing community here, hehehe.

Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-04-06 16:13 | Report Abuse

Oh I am extremely glad you re-post my post here. See am I not a good person here, telling people what is right about fundamentals in investing, the very basic of accounting; so that they won't be misled by somebody who knows nut about investing? So that they won't go to Holland reading your posts.

Aiyah, you read every post here posted by the people here. All their postings are full of positive vibes. Everyone here (except me lah) is so knowledgeable of what they wrote. You? Looking at your postings, nothing, nothing at all.

Posted by mogul88 > 2013-04-08 23:14 | Report Abuse

kcchongz, no need to bother with this dimwit la. obviously he is having fun provoking you. my call out to all forumers to just ignore whatever this idiot posted. doesnt add value at all to the forum. moderators doest seem to be doing the job of throwing away rubbish

Posted by Ooi Teik Bee > 2013-04-08 23:28 | Report Abuse

Dear Kcchongnz,

There is no question everyone learns a lot from you on FA. I feel that I am far far behind you in term of FA knowledge. Hence I make a point to attend a special course to catch up.

I am very pleased with your write up, I am very confident I will do very well in my investment in KLSE after learning from you on FA.

Keep up your good work ! You will be rewarded accordingly.

Thank you.

Ooi

Posted by kcchongnz > 2013-04-28 11:54 | Report Abuse

Ooi, need to correct something here regarding my previous post:

[Posted by kcchongnz > Mar 31, 2013 01:55 PM | Report Abuse X
Ooi, looking at Graham's formula below:
IV=(EPS*(8.5+2g)*4.4)/Y
Now I realized that the growth portion is small. for example, if the growth is 10%, 2*g is only 0.2, as compared to 8.5. That is why the figure doesn't change much when you alter the growth rate. This could mean that Graham doesn't place too much emphasize on growth, which is a forecast figure in the future. Just guessing.
Incidentally, the figure 8.5 is the PE ratio Graham used for all stocks; or if you flip it around, it is the earnings yield of about 12% which was Graham's desire. ]


The g in the formula is the expected growth rate. If the rate is 15%, use 15 (and not 0.15 or 15%) in the formula.

Notice that doing so will give you a very high intrinsic values for the stocks you have so far evaluated using this formula. This is because the PE ratios of those stocks are very low to begin with.

Hence my opinion is not to rely too much using this valuation method to find its intrinsic value; but instead use it to check if the market price of a stock is reasonable (whether it is too high particularly) by finding what is the "implied" growth rate the market accorded to this stock.

Posted by Ooi Teik Bee > 2013-04-28 11:59 | Report Abuse

Dear Kcchongnz,

Thank you for your information. Will change it accordingly.