Long term ? Not sure what your definition of long term is - but a few weeks shouldn't be it. Generally, I would consider less than 12 months "short term", 1 - 3 years "medium term" and 3 - 5 years or more "long term" ... although you should really consider long term to be closer to market cycle length - which is often 7 - 10 years. Ask me again in 10 years whether PTM was a good investment
i thought this is atleast worth while bring this back up... is anyone still holding their platnium shares? Im quite surprised the price slide with it now sitting down at 5.40. While still an 8% profit for those who originally recieved shares, its a far cry from the 80% premium... Is this a good example of the market expectations bumped up the price or has their business model become questionable in the sub-prime market?
I don't think the Platinum business model is affected at all by sub-prime. In fact they are perhaps the antithesis of the financial engineering and debt binge! For some time PTM has been speaking out against the cheap debt party but their performance has been subpar on many funds (and thus the PTM share price due to fund outflows) because the equity party seems to be continuing long after the party goers should have been put in a taxi for home Cheers N.
Open PTM chart and you get an answer to your question (closed today at $5.27). Not to worry....PTM still needs $5.27 to hit the bottom (bottom = $0).
I bailed on mine on the day after open day. Had a feeling it was one of those shares that would generate a lot of excitement at float and then no one would care anymore. Yet another shining example of how share price at any point in time has little, if anything, to do with the underlying business
"Yet another shining example of how share price at any point in time has little, if anything, to do with the underlying business" Well said !!
that was nothing but a warmed up fart.. I also got out on day 1, getting around 8 bux.. Since your having a dig at my comments in the RBA thread, could you explain to me how interest rates made this stock plummet? I never said ALL stocks reflect the underlying business... generally they do, this is why this stock fell back to 'reasonable' levels based on proper company valuations. 8-9$ was stupid prices to pay for a stock which had a book value of about $5.
Dont think I ever suggested that interest rates were the only reason behind stock movements. They certainly are A reason though. My argument is that on the whole, stocks do not reflect their underlying value, and any that happen to coincide with some particular valuation of a business are purely coincidental. If there were any truth to the argument that stocks only reflect the underlying business, there would be very little day to day volatility of the stocks. Unless you are an accountant working on the monthly management reporting for a company, you have absolutely no idea what the day to day changes in the value of the company are. The only times you do are every 6 months when the company releases a report, but all these do is tell you what the company was worth a month or more ago! The "stupid prices" you refer to is the sharemarket - when 2 planes hit the towers in new york, did it have any real impact on the underlying businesses (in most cases) on our share market? No, of course not. Did people eat any less that week? Probably not. Did people use less electricity that week? Doubt it, they probably used more with their TVs on all day and night. So the underlying fundamentals of the businesses did not change, yet shares dropped pretty much across the board. People confuse the share market with the underlying business - this couldnt be further from the truth. The share market is a completely contrived market. It doesnt actually exist, we just made it up for fun. Its like those morons selling video game swords on ebay for real money. its main drivers are emotional - greed and fear. Yes, I agree with the value investing crowd that over the LONG term, shares of a good quality, growing business should grow. What price they grow from, and what price they grow to are arbitrary. Even in my example in the other thread on the effect of interest rates on shares, the risk premium is completely arbitrary.
Higher interest rates raises our $ which for a fund that invests mainly/exclusivly in o/s shares means less profit coming in. Lower income gives a perception of people pulling their funds to chase returns lowering total management fees, lower fees = less profit so lower share price. PCM as their listed fund explains how they failed to make the most of what the market has had to offer - http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20071016/pdf/3154cl0tj1kgxb.pdf Falling dollar would help them out
Not quite. Earnings aren't the same as dividends. Earnings are the net income. Quite often, the company retains some earnings rather than paying them all out to the company owners in the form of dividends. It might do this to fund growth objectives like buying another business, developing an iron ore mine, or buying back their own shares. You can read more here: P/E ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Noone, they get taken off the register. Think of it as a cake. If there are 10 slices to the cake, you don't get much. But if there are 5 slices to the take, you get quite a bit. It's the same with shares. If there are heaps of shares, your portion of the dividend is weak. But if the company bought back shares, your portion of the dividend increases, increasing the value of that share.
When you count the number of mistakes they made, that's a pretty damning read. At least they admit their faults.