Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Probably the best place to go is to the NAIC website
http://new.better-investing.org/
they have some screens they run, and also a list of the most active stocks showing what NAIC clubs are buying. While of course this is no substitute for your own due diligence, it provides a somewhat more reliable starting point for stocks to look at.
___________________________________________________
Price is a crazy and incalculable thing, while Value is an intrinsic and indestructible thing. G.K. Chesterton
Hi Northwesterner, it is a shame that the screen works so poorly. Maybe they need to make the screen have user selectable criteria, it may work better that way. My thought was that one could use the screen to find stocks that were NAIC compatible, and then use the SSG for finer screening of the stocks. To be honest I have never owned any stocks, and will most likely start out with mutual funds when/if I do. But I like the NAIC method of stock selection the best so far. But I think they need a good stock screener to sort through the 7000+ stocks out there. I like the MSN stock screen the best for ease of use, but it does not have all the criteria needed to do a proper NAIC screen. They do not have any ten year screens, the best you can use are five years. While they do have the average five year PE, they do not have the Average five year high PE, or the Average five year low PE. Which is needed for later calculations.
If you do have any stock that pass the NAIC method it may be interesting to run them past the other investing styles on quicken. Also I was pointed to this web page. http://quotes.nasdaq.com/asp/MasterDataEntry.asp?page=guruanalysis where you can compare the stock to nine other styles of stock selection.
I wish you a good day and happy stock hunting.
I have looked at Quicken's purported NAIC screen from time to time and have had other experienced NAIC investors look at it, and it is, to put it mildly, a crock. Virtually none of its best picks using the NAIC criteria pass even a cursory look at an SSG. I'm surprised NAIC allows Quicken to use their name. It certainly gives a very bad impression of what a good NAIC stock is.
Rather than criticizing in general, let's get specific.
Let's look at their top choices.
1. Cubic Corp. 10 year sales growth 9.8%. Earnings line is all over the map. Shows no ability to manage profits and earnings. Pretax Profits and ROE are also all over the map. Average high PE is 157. This is NOT an NAIC stock.
2. PLMD. I actually looked at this one. It does look okay on the SSG, BUT it's being investigated for fraud by the feds. this is not what NAIC investors are looking for.
3. Business Objects. Growth was good until recently, but one look at the PERT-A, columns R & S, shows that growth recently has been in the low single digits down to negative. This is not what we're looking for.
4. AFCI. Good god, look at page 1 of the SSG. Sales have fallen the past year, earnings and profits are all over the map. PERT-A TTM EPS growth has been negative 90% for the past three quarters. This is a dog by NAIC standards.
I could go on, but why? this is a travesty of the NAIC concepts.
___________________________________________________
Price is a crazy and incalculable thing, while Value is an intrinsic and indestructible thing. G.K. Chesterton
I see there have not been to much action here. How are the drips doing? You may be interested in this site for stock ideas. http://www.quicken.com/investments/strategies/ you can click on the strong interest stocks link, for a screen of stocks that meet that investment style. On the screen page you can sort by the criteria you think is most important.
Hi, I was just looking round the boards and saw the drips, here. Thought I would invite you guy's over to my board at. http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=966
The board mainly covers systematic investing, I am currently interested in formula plans. I have a few free spread sheets there. I believe I am still about two years away from starting to invest. So I have not really investigated ways to pick stocks, but I have read (Starting and Running a Profitable Investment Club by Thomas E. O'Hara and Kenneth S. Janke, Sr.), and it seems like the way to go.
Malcolm, Malcolm, Malcolm.
This thread was originally envisioned (I know its history, was here at its start) as a thread focussing on fundamental investing principles, stock analysis, etc.
You've been pushing Fonar on other boards now for so long it's become a running joke. Anybody who raises legitimate concerns about the company is demeaned, insulted, and shouted down, without any attention paid to the legitimate concerns.
As to potential investors in Fonar, if you don' t do your DD, you deserve what you get. If you do your DD, one thing you will look into is the nature of the stock, particularly the voting rights given to A and B stock. You will realize that the public stockholders have no effective control of the company, and that the founder has reserved virtually all the voting power exclusively to himself.
You will also find out many other things that make this company look like a mighty poor investment.
But you can find those out for yourself.
If you follow Malcolm and don't do your DD, well, you know what they say about people who are parted from their money.
The Best Decision !
The Right Info At The Right Time !!
http://b33267ps.co-inc.com
These guys are super. I'm finally doing very well again !!
There insight is THE BEST ..
As to selling with the intent of buying back, I occasionally do that, but not on the basis of projections of what I think the market will do. That's market timing, and I don't even try to do that. Rather, if a stock gets into the sell zone of my SSG (Stock Selection Guide) I will realize that it is overpriced for my purposes, and sell. Most of the time it comes back down again, and if it comes back into the buy zone and I still like the stock, I'll buy it back. But it is all driven by the SSG. (The SSG is a tool, not a straitjacket, so I don't always follow it, but the times I haven't I tend to regret not doing so because more often than not it turned out to be right.)
But as to thinking to sell now and assuming that there will be weakness in the fall, I just don't do that. I just don't know enough about the market to feel comfortable doing that, and frankly I don't want to try to understand the market on those terms. I believe in the philosophy that you buy a stock, not the market. In every down market some stocks still go up, and in every up market some stocks still go down. How do I know which my stock will be? I don't. So I just don't invest on that philosophy.
I know I'm probably leaving some money on the table. But I have made a conscious decision not to try to chase every dollar out there, but to aim for my goal, which is 15% year in year out and is better than the historical market results of about 11.4% (and I don't buy this "new economy" stuff; long term, earnings drive stock values, and long term the earnings overall of the nation aren't going to exceed 11.4% no matter what one says. IMO, of course! <g>) Which is why I had nothing in Amazon, AOL, Yahoo, EBay, etc. If I had timed them right I could have made a bundle. If I had timed them wrong I could have lost a bundle (as many did). None of them passed the SSG, so I passed on them all. And slept a lot better than a lot of my friends did!
I don't mind at all -- loved the outline of calls. I sort of understand them in general, and did write a bunch of them on one stock I had that kept climbing and I wanted to make some money and was willing to be bought out if it climbed, which it kept doing, since I wanted to cash some out anyhow.
But your chart -- well, I have no idea what most of those lines are, and even less idea what they mean.
Edit: I see now that there's a Chart School. Maybe I should go to Chart School! So if you think your best answer to me is do that, say so. Or if you have better answers, great!
g
What, for example, is RSI? Possibly Relative Strength Index? What does it measure, what is good and what is bad, what do the numbers (14) 58.2 mean, and what value do they have for the investor?
MA I know as moving average, MA(50) is 50 day moving average and MA(200) is 200 day moving average. But
And is EMA the moving average of volume? And if so, why the E??
Then there's MACD(12,26,9) 0.57. Huh? I see two lines and a filled in line section. (Well, you know what I mean). But I have NO idea what any of this means, or what it is supposed to be telling me.
Ditto for OBV (14 May). Is the V for volume? Assume the MA(30) is the 30 day moving average again, but why it's plotted against OBV and what it means when they cross I have NO idea.
So -- care to enlighten me (and anybody else who wanders by), or should I go to Chart School (assuming I can go there -- is this a pay site?)
Thanks for the response -- hope we can get some good discussions going here. Invite your friends and neighbors into the pool!
You say you approach stocks differently than I do. What's your approach?
After about 30 years of hit-and-miss, unfocussed, tips-from-friends-and-brokers type investing, I decided to get serious about figuring out what I was doing. (By then I had accumulated enough that it was worth paying attention to instead of playing with). To cut a very long story short, I finally came up with two realizations and a decision.
The realizations:
1. All my research showed that the way to make money in the stock market is to pick a strategy and STICK WITH IT. As long as the strategy is good, and you keep making sure it works, follow it through thick and thin. There are a number of strategies that work. The problem is people aren't consistent, which is where they fall short.
2. Despite the mantra of buy low and sell high, most people do the opposite. They buy when a stock has momentum, when it's being talked about, when it looks like it's climbing to the sky and they don't want to be left behind. Then when, inevitably, it goes down, as all stocks do, they sell it, usually at a loss, because they're afraid of losing even more. A good strategy followed scrupulously is the only thing that will avoid this psychological trap.
The decision: After looking at a lot of strategies (the hokily titled book, "The Best Little Guide to Stock Investing" by Kelly is actually a fantastic book, IMO -- think that's the exact name, if not it's close--lays out in a few pages the philosophy and strategy of many of the major players today, Buffett, Lynch, O'Neill, Fisher, etc.) I settled on the NAIC system as being proven, usable, and effective for long term growth. I started a club (a somewhat different club from the usual; all the members are basically in my position, a fair chunk of $ to invest, knowledge of the markets and investing, but no strategy; we didn't want to diddle around with $25 or $50 a month, so we tossed in meaningful money to keep our attention focussed). We've been at it for about two years now, and so far it's worked both in the up market of the first year (our return was 101%) and the down market (we're still up 38% for the ttm.) That's only two years, of course, but it's both up and down markets, and so far the tools have worked like a champ.
So that's my present approach to stocks. What's yours?
I'll let this message focus just on this topic, and get to BGP next message.
Borders Group - BGP
Note: this is a corrected version of the post made a few hours ago, now removed.
This is an analysis of Borders Group done for my investment club. Comments appreciated.
History
Purchased 200 shares 3/3/99 at 13.34, basis $2,668.75
Latest price 5/11/01 $19.17
If sold, less commission, would net $3,804.10, for annualized return of approx 17.8%
BGP has met (and slightly exceeded) our minimum expectations of 15% annualized growth.
Basis for purchase was steadily increasing sales on a very constant annual increase of about 13%, since 1992. Earnings had been erratic, with losses in 1993 and 1995, but for 1996, 1997, and 1998 earnings had been strong and growing, though the curve was flattening.
The stock price had dropped from a high of 41, in what we felt was an overreaction to a modest 4th quarter 1998.
We therefore bought at $13.34. The minimum goal, therefore, became a stock price of $27 by 3/04. We had a bounce shortly after purchase, which seemed to validate our analysis, but then the stock dropped again, to as low as 10.9. It has recently nearly doubled, to 19.17, near the 52 week high of 19.98 but nowhere near recovering its 1998 high of 41. However, the stock is on track to meet our five year goal if it continues its present growth trend.
Analysis of the 2000 Annual Report and 10-K, however, shows some concern whether the stock can continue its pattern of growth.
EPS for the past for years were: (FY 1996 ends late Jan 1997, etc. This is how BGP states their FYs, though others, such as Quicken and First Call, consider the year ending Jan 2001 to be FY 2001. Love these different denominations – make comparisons really fun!)
FY 1996, .70
FY 1997, .98 (+40%)
FY 1998, 1.12 (+14,29%) (our buying point)
FY 1999, $ 1.13 (+.9%)
Earnings for FY 2000 are reported three ways. Reported earnings were $.54, or down 52%. However, BGP took a big one-time write-off of All Wound Up, a disasterous acquisition/attempt at diversification. (I am happy to say that this sort of diversification does not appear in their future plans.) Diluted EPS from continuing operations were $ .92 (-18.6%)
Diluted earnings from operations "Before asset impairments and Other Writedowns) were $1.21 per share (+7.08%). This is probably the correct number to use for future growth projections. (AAII uses .68; First Call uses $1.15, S&P uses $.67. I have no idea where these other figures come from. Quicken doesn't even have FY 2000 data yet.)
BGP is divided into four basic divisions. With dollars in millions:
Borders Superstores – 2000 sales $ 2,090.3, net income $82.6 (4.0% of sales)
Waldenbooks - 2000 sales $ 944.3, net income 40.2 (4.3% of sales)
International - 2000 sales 219.1, net loss 10.2 (4.7% of sales)
Borders.com - 2000 sales 27.4, net loss 29.7 (108% of sales)
Borders is refreshingly candid about their plans. Borders business stragety is to use Waldenbooks as a cash cow, without significant expansion plans ("opportunistic store openings" is all) ; continue growth in its superstores and international division; convert its international division to profitability; and bring Borders.com to profitability. They will use "synergies and economy of scale" to control costs.
Earnings forecast: First Call is calling for EPS of $1.38 for this FY (end 1/02) and $1.57 for next FY. These would be growth, using their $1.15 number for FY00, of 20% and 13.8%. The AAII data disk gives an analysts growth rate of 16.2%. Is this realistic? I doubt it.
Looking at their divisions:
Waldenbooks: This is their cash cow, funding growth without the need for excess borrowing. (They have virtually no long term debt.) However, not only are they not opening many new stores, they are closing more. In 1998, 1999, and 2000 combined they opened 66 stores and closed 120. The pace of openings is slowing and of closings is increasing. Store count is down from 900 in 1998 to 869 in 2000. And net income is dropping sharply, both in raw dollars and as a percent of sales. We had income in dollars (millions) and as a percent of sales of:
1998 $61.0 6.4%
1999 $55.5 5.8%
2000 $40.2 4.3%
The drop for 2000 is partly a result of fewer stores and, more important, partly caused by a comprable stores sales decrease of 2.9%. This is not a good omen. Cash flow increased, which is good, but the earnings drop is not encouraging for long term growth.
International: This is a small segment. It has lost money each year, and the losses have been increasing, from $3.2 million in 1998 to $7.9 million in 1999 to $10.2 million in 2000. International consists of both Borders Superstores (5 in 1998, 9 in 1999, 14 in 2000) and the Books etc. chain in England (26 in 1998, 27 in 1999, 31 in 2000).
Borders.com This is still a tiny segment, but accounts for major loss. And losses have been mounting. Borders has recently signed an agreement for a co-branded site with Amazon, which will provide inventory, fulfillment, site content, and customer service. Borders will promote Amazon's site in its stores. Both companies said the deal won't change their previously issued financial guidance (MarketWatch story 4/11/01). Whether BGP will continue to show a loss on it's .com operations, or will simply show no profit, isn't clear. However, since no on-line bookseller is making money, there's no reason to think Borders will. At best they will move to break-even.
Borders superstores: If serious growth is to come, this is where it must come. The superstores accounted in 2000 for 63.6% of sales and virtually all the net operating income of the company (in 2000 net income from operations for the superstores was $82.6 million; the combined results for the other three divisions was $0.3 million).
Where is the growth here coming from? New store openings, for one. But planned openings are slowing down. Openings were: 1998, 43 stores; 1999, 46 stores; 2000 44 stores. But plans for 2001 are only 25-30 stores. Total stores were: 1998, 245; 1999, 291, 2000, 335. Thus, the store increase for ‘98 was from 202 to 245, or 21% store growth. If 30 stores are opened in 2001, the high end of the projected range, that will amount to only 9% growth.
Comparable store sales increases are down, too; 98-99 was 5.4%; 99-00 was 2.3%. Granted, this was a tough period for the market, including retail sales, but still. Net income as a % of sales is staying flat at 4%.
One unknown not discussed in the AR or 10-K is how soon stores become profitable. If it takes several years for stores to mature, then the division is being carried by perhaps 250 stores with about 100 still to mature. This would be a strong growth driver. OTOH, if stores mature quickly, most of the stores are fully accounted for in the present results.
Other observations: The synergies and economies of scale they talk about haven't shown up yet. In fact, SG&A expenses have not only been increasing, but have been increasing as a percentage of sales, from 21.5% in FY 98 to 22.1% in FY 99 to 22.5% in FY 00. With COS staying basically steady at about 72%, of sales though creeping up (71.7, 71.7, 72 in the last three FYs), operating income as a percent of sales has dropped in the past three FYs, 6.4% to 5.8% to 5.2%. There is no indication in their annual report or their 10-K that this is going to reverse.
Overall: At best, Waldenbooks will be stagnant. This segment represents 29% of sales. Thus, growth must come entirely from the other three divisions. International is not worth much at this point, only 7% of sales. Its losses have been mounting year by year, so the best that can be hoped for during the next year or two is that it will not have even higher losses. Figure it at the best not a factor in growth for the next two years, and at the worst a continued drain. Borders.com is gone. What will the result of the Borders-Amazon deal be on the bottom line? Nobody is saying, but the guidance isn't changing. Figure no change there. So, all the earnings growth for the next two years has to come from the Borders Superstores. Can the Superstores grow at 15% or more? The store count will go up 9%. Since it is likely that new sites won't be as profitable as the sites already filled and cherrypicked, figure maybe 7% increase in sales and earnings from new stores, if we're lucky. Same store sales increases were down to 2.3% last year, but the average of two years was about 4%. So allow 4% there, and assume (maybe not a safe assumption) the profit margins will hold up, for 4% profit growth. This gives us 11% growth in the superstores. Where is the rest of the 20% growth FirstCall forecasts coming from? Your guess is a good as mine. I don't see it. Eleven percent at best. Since it's quite possible that Waldenbooks profits will continue to drop as stores get closed and same stores sales are at best level, and since it's quite possible that the international division losses will mount for another year, I think a 10% growth figure is probably the most I feel comfortable with.
An Updated SSG:
So, for forecasting purposes I'm using a 10% growth rate on the SSG. I changed the AAII FY2000 EPS from .68 to $1.21, which is a better base for forecasting since there shouldn't be another All Wound Up type write-off in the future (unless there is a significant write-off of some .com assets). This would give 2001 EPS of $1.33 (vs. First Call of $1.38) and 2002 of $1.46 (vs. $1.57).
For the high P/E, the high P/Es for 1996, 1997, and 1998 were in the 30s, but for 2000 the high P/E was 14.7. The current P/E is 15.8. Being very conservative, I'll go with the 15. This gives me a five year forecast price of $29.2. For the low P/E, I used the historical low of 9.0. The range of options for the low price is from a forecast 6.1, which seems clearly too low, to a recent severe market low of 10.9, which I used.
Using 25/50/25 zoning, this gives zones of 10.9 - 15.5 - 24.6 - 29.2. This puts the current price well into the hold zone. (Even on 33-33-33 zoning the current price is in the hold zone.) The upside-downside is only 1.2. Annual return is only 8.8%.
This would suggest that we put BGP on our watch list, and if it reaches the bottom of the sell zone, 24.6, sell it. We might even put in a sell at that price, for a net after commission of $4,890.05. If this occurred within the next six months we would have an annualized return of 27.4%, and we would have milked most of the projected price gain out of the stock.
A contrary view:
There is a contrary view, and it would go like this.
Start with the net income for the divisions given above.
Borders.com has been dragging down earnings, and it is now history. Even if it isn't profitable, taking away the loss you add $30 million back into earnings.
International sales have been increasing at a rapid pace, nearly doubling in two years. Since Borders doesn't have the name recognition overseas that it has here, it will take longer for those stores to become profitable. But assume sales growth continues by just 25% annually from the combination of new stores and same store sales growth, in five years you have sales of $669 million. Allow a margin half that for domestic stores, or 2%, and you have profits of $13 million as opposed to loss of $10. That's a positive change of $23 million. (And if margins were the same 4% as they are stateside, you add more.)
Assume Waldenbooks simply stabilizes, and keeps throwing off cash, no change in earnings.
Let the Borders Superstore growth increase by only 10%. That's plenty to add $50 million to net income five years out.
So five years from now you have increased earnings by $103 million. Assume an increase in the present base of 78 million shares to, say, 90 million shares for issuance of stock options, this is an additional $1.14 per share. That gives five year earnings of $2.33. Plug this into the SSG, give a less paranoid P/E of 20, and your zoning suddenly becomes 10.9 - 19.8 - 37.7 - 46.6, with an u/d of 3.3 and an annual rate of return of 19.4%.
And, we note that the bad earnings for 2000, down from $1.17 to .54, will have scared off investors. Give Borders a few good years, and investors will rediscover Borders.
Conclusion:
We will be discussing the BGP annual report and this analysis at our meeting on the 27th. Come prepared with your comments and questions.
No, please do post it here! I don't see why we need to limit this to drip stocks, unless that's Sam's intention.
I am interested in hearing other reasons for selecting long term investments such as:
-Stock ownership provides certain benefits to share holders. For example, Disney used to grant free discount cards to shareholders and IBM sometimes offers PC discounts.
-Dividends pay high returns; especially blue chips that pay higher returns than the average money market.
-The stock certificate looks really cool and makes a nice gift! (I'm not kidding! I've taken IBM certificates and given them as gifts to children to get 'em hooked. Disney would be a better choice though.)
-The product or service is a "must have". BellSouth or Florida Power and Light, for example.
-Cheap or free commissions available through share holder services.
Other reasons to add to this list? From the sensible to the ridiculous, I don't care - let me know!
Sam
You will enjoy having the ability to keep your thread on-topic and spammer free with CoB. I especially like the IHUB Admin. They seem to listen to the people who post on their site.
I have it and you bookmarked.
Reid
From the thread header, here's the text of the post I referenced. It vaguely describes my long term picking philosophy and discloses my current positions.
Sam
I'm holding IBM and DIS at the moment and looking for others. My long term investment picks tend to be centered on things that affect my life directly such as common services I consume (utilities, for example), brands that my family recognizes and buys (Coca-Cola, Disney, and General Motors to name a few), and retail stores we patronize (Target, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and Home Depot). From there, I study basic fundamentals and *maybe* technicals w/ respect to a daily chart to determine my entry. When the price is in the ballpark range, I typically just use a market order to get in. From there, I setup a DRIP (if it's available for my stock) and I forget about it.
I am very interested in the products or services of these companies, what they do, and how they're doing. I watch with glee when Disney has a hit animation feature or when GM rolls out a tough new SUV that everyone has to have. (Watch for the Avalanche and Hummer 2 rolling out soon... if gas prices and the economy stabilizes, those things will be HOT.)
All that said, I'm not afraid to use a stock as a piece of meat for trading for profits either. In fact, I'll begin selling covered calls on some of my IBM this summer.
LOL! Well, uh, thanks Reid.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |