Coba di cocokin pakai Fibo, kalau masuk sih ok lah, kalau gak buang ajah price target :d
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Linsam 12 <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > > > Happy reading.... > > > http://www.marketwatch.com/story/price-targets-are-stupid-2012-06-18 > > By Barry Randall > > You've seen and heard them, those simple declarations by analysts > professing to see the future: price targets. Here are a few recent ones: > > - > > Goldman Sachs's price target for IBM IBM > +0.32%<http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/IBM?link=MW_story_quote> is > $223: "We reiterate our Buy rating and 12-month target price of $223. Our > price target continues to be based on a P/E multiple of 15X on our 2012 EPS > estimate of $15.09. Key risks include macro pressures on key segment > revenues and lower-than-expected share repurchases and dividend increases." > (from Goldman's May 20, 2012 'Hardware Download') > - > > Morgan Stanley's price target on Juniper NetworksJNPR > +0.67%<http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/JNPR?link=MW_story_quote> is > $25: "Lowering estimates and PT to $25 from $27 but reiterating OW on the > lower bar ahead of the seasonal capex turn (from June 13, 2012 analyst > note)." > - > > Piper Jaffray, employer of Apple AAPL > +0.28%<http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/AAPL?link=MW_story_quote> > axe > Gene Munster, thinks Apple is headed to $910, markedly higher than its > current price in the high $500s: "14x CY14E EPS of $65.14" (from Piper's > June 11, 2012 note discussing developments from Apple's World Wide > Developer Conference) > > It's not enough to simply think a stock is a buy, sell or hold. Heck no. > The analyst has to pinpoint exactly where (and sometimes even when) a stock > will hit a particular price. > > Am I alone in thinking that this is insane? > > It's nuts for three reasons. The first reason is that it assumes the > analyst (or pundit or strategist or whoever) cannot only predict the > future, but also predict *how investors will feel about it* . Or put > another way, the analyst is not only taking a crack at predicting a > company's future earnings, but also the multiple that will be put on it. > > But this is ridiculous, and examples abound showing why. Did the analysts > covering, say, LinkedIn LNKD > +0.17%<http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/LNKD?link=MW_story_quote> , > take into account that the sudden post-IPO drop in demand for Facebook FB > +1.60% <http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/FB?link=MW_story_quote> > would > affect demand for LinkedIn, causing the price of LinkedIn shares to tumble > precipitously? Having read a large amount of LinkedIn research, I'm > qualified to tell you the answer: No, they didn't. > > In fact, most of the analysts covering LinkedIn contemplated the exact > opposite scenario: that any drop in Facebook's price would happen because > its business model was weaker than LinkedIn's. In a zero-sum game, > Facebook's loss would be LinkedIn's gain. In fact, the relative valuations > (Facebook trading at a forward P/E ratio of 44 vs. 98 for LinkedIn), neatly > demonstrated the analysts' confidence in LinkedIn. Confidence that proved > to be unwise, as Facebook, LinkedIn, Zillow, Zynga and pretty much every > Web 2.0 social media property declined sharply over the last month. > > In other words, whatever multiple that analysts were putting on shares of > these companies didn't seem to account for the relationships among them. > Like the fact that mutual funds and ETFs held multiple players in each > class, making redemptions bad for all of them. Oops. > > A second reason price targets are crazy is easier to grasp: the problem > with predicting the future in general is... *all the things that will > happen between now and the future.* Sure, analysts can roughly gauge a > company's revenues and expenses, and through them its future earnings. And > if nothing happens between now and the future, great. But lots of things do > happen. Mergers. Product launches by competitors. Executive departures. > Black Swan events - positive ones like the emergence of fracking and tragic > ones like 9/11. > > If we lived in a vacuum, all companies would hit their targets. But we > don't. > > The third and most important reason price targets are insane is that *the > price of anything (stocks included) is determined by supply and demand* . > Yet neither Street analysts nor the media make any attempt to gauge supply > and demand when throwing out price targets. > > How do you know that the stock you want to buy isn't being sold right now > by some new portfolio manager at Fidelity, who's liquidating a seven % > position held by her (fired) predecessor? She can sell at will because her > performance won't start counting until she's got the portfolio where she > wants it. > > How can you be sure that stock you just shorted isn't being bought by some > multi-billion-dollar hedge fund's "black box," whose algorithms are > suddenly impressed by the changes in some obscure financial factor? You do > know that more than 70% of all shares traded on equity exchanges in the > U.S. are done so by high frequency traders, right? That means that supply > and demand are essentially controlled by "investors" whose quantitative > tools are not only unfathomable, but change continuously. Good luck with > that. > > The bottom line is that whether you're a trader or an investor, the future > price of the stock you're thinking about buying is a mystery wrapped in an > enigma wrapped in a price target. Short term price appreciation (or > depreciation for short sellers) is going to occur for reasons related to > supply and demand, two factors about which you have basically no knowledge. > So be prepared for uncertainty, as you wait for your fundamental or > technical analysis to play out. > > Hopefully you get the picture now: never let some overconfident Wall > Street analyst put your smiling face in the middle of a price target. > > This commentary does not constitute individualized investment advice. The > opinions offered herein are not personalized recommendations to buy, sell > or hold securities. > > DISCLOSURE: Barry Randall is long IBM, Z. > > <http://www.wordnik.com/> > > > -- Sent With Love *©*
