http://penge.dk/investering/guider-investering/guide-investeringsstrategi/valueaktier
Faldt over denne beskrivelse. Nu blev jeg igen forvirret over om jeg reelt er til valueaktier eller om jeg er til ondervurderede aktier.
Min umiddelbare definition er at det er et firma som er lavt vaerdisat OG har en god indtjening. Dvs. F.eks. Intel og HP. En indtjening paa over 10 procent af markedsvaerdien ca. Aarligt.
Jeg kom saa til at skrive at ges var en valueaktie i chatten, blev promte korrekteret, og matte saa lige laese om der er andre som har misfotstaaet begrebet - og ja, det mener jeg ogsaa selveste penge.dk har.
Er der en som har en kort korrekt definition af aktietyper, til fremtidig reference i diskussioner?
Faldt over denne beskrivelse. Nu blev jeg igen forvirret over om jeg reelt er til valueaktier eller om jeg er til ondervurderede aktier.
Min umiddelbare definition er at det er et firma som er lavt vaerdisat OG har en god indtjening. Dvs. F.eks. Intel og HP. En indtjening paa over 10 procent af markedsvaerdien ca. Aarligt.
Jeg kom saa til at skrive at ges var en valueaktie i chatten, blev promte korrekteret, og matte saa lige laese om der er andre som har misfotstaaet begrebet - og ja, det mener jeg ogsaa selveste penge.dk har.
Er der en som har en kort korrekt definition af aktietyper, til fremtidig reference i diskussioner?
14/9 2010 21:52 5
33455 Jeg synes den beskrivelse er ufattelig mærkelig må jeg tilstå. Det handler da netop IKKE om lav indtjening, men om at man får lav kurs/ indre værdi. Så din definition er meget bedre.
Value aktier er en term som Ben Graham har introduceret og handler om aktiens fundamentale værdier.
Så det handler om lav p/e (udelukker firmaer med underskud), høj udbytte procenter (eks. Cramers 4% regel) k/i betydeligt under 1.
Problemet ved at kalde et firma (eksempelvis GEN eller GES) for value når de leverer underskud, er at underskud jo udhuler værdien af egenkapitalen og derfor piller ved den indre værdi.
Genmab handles næsten til deres cashværdi og fabrik, men med deres store burn kan de ikke kaldes en valueaktie.
Man kan gå længere og sige at en valueaktie skal levere konstante overskud over de sidste 10 år.
På side 113-114 i the intelligent investor peger han på en række regler for den defensive investorer.
Reglerne er: Større firma, Konservativt finansieret, max p/e 25, udbyttebetaling de sidste 10 år.
Value investing is an investment paradigm that derives from the ideas on investment and speculation that Ben Graham & David Dodd began teaching at Columbia Business School in 1928 and subsequently developed in their 1934 text Security Analysis. Although value investing has taken many forms since its inception, it generally involves buying securities whose shares appear underpriced by some form(s) of fundamental analysis.[1] As examples, such securities may be stock in public companies that trade at discounts to book value or tangible book value, have high dividend yields, have low price-to-earning multiples or have low price-to-book ratios.
Value aktier er en term som Ben Graham har introduceret og handler om aktiens fundamentale værdier.
Så det handler om lav p/e (udelukker firmaer med underskud), høj udbytte procenter (eks. Cramers 4% regel) k/i betydeligt under 1.
Problemet ved at kalde et firma (eksempelvis GEN eller GES) for value når de leverer underskud, er at underskud jo udhuler værdien af egenkapitalen og derfor piller ved den indre værdi.
Genmab handles næsten til deres cashværdi og fabrik, men med deres store burn kan de ikke kaldes en valueaktie.
Man kan gå længere og sige at en valueaktie skal levere konstante overskud over de sidste 10 år.
På side 113-114 i the intelligent investor peger han på en række regler for den defensive investorer.
Reglerne er: Større firma, Konservativt finansieret, max p/e 25, udbyttebetaling de sidste 10 år.
Value investing is an investment paradigm that derives from the ideas on investment and speculation that Ben Graham & David Dodd began teaching at Columbia Business School in 1928 and subsequently developed in their 1934 text Security Analysis. Although value investing has taken many forms since its inception, it generally involves buying securities whose shares appear underpriced by some form(s) of fundamental analysis.[1] As examples, such securities may be stock in public companies that trade at discounts to book value or tangible book value, have high dividend yields, have low price-to-earning multiples or have low price-to-book ratios.
19/9 2010 11:47 le 033675 jeg har en helt anden opfattelse og mener at de bedste valueaktier er de aktier, der har underskud, men ligger i dne rigtige fase i konjunkturcyklen så man ve dat forudsige konjunkturene kan købe aktier med underskud meget billigt, hvorefter de stiger fordi den sektor de opererer i vender rundt fra krise til boom, det er min definitione
15/9 2010 01:50 Valueguy 033461 "Price is what you pay, value is what you get" er Buffet kendt for at sige. Med andre ord mener han, at der er tale om en valueinvestering, så længe prisen er under den egentlige underliggende værdi. En temmelig bred definition, kan man sige. Men han har udvidet sit synspunkt i sit essay ""Value" Investing: A Redundancy":
Most analysts feel they must choose between two approaches customarily thought to be in opposition: "value" and "growth". Indeed, many investment professionals see any mixing of the two terms as a form of intellectual cross-dressing.
We (Charlie Munger og Buffet selv) view that as fuzzy thinking (in which, it must be confessed, I myself engaged some years ago). In our opinion, the two approaches join at the hip: Growth is _always_ a component in hte calculation of value, constituting a variable whose importance can range from negligible to enormous and whose impact can be negative as well as positive.
In addition, we think the term "value investing" is redundant. What is "investing" if not the act of seeking value at least sufficient to justify the amount paid? (...)
Whether appropriate or not, the term "value investing" is wisely used. Typically, it connotes the purchase of stocks having attributes such as a low ratio of price to book value, a low price earnings ration, or a high divident yield. Unfortunately, such characteristics, even if the appear in combination, are far from determincative as to whether an investor is indeed buying something for what it is worth and is therefore truly operating on the principle of obtaining value in his investments. Correspondingly, opposite characteristics - a high ratio of price to book value, a high price-earnings ratiom and a low dividend yield - are in no way inconsistent with a "value" purchase.
Similarly, business growth, per se, tells us little about value. It's true that growth often has a positive impact on value, sometimes one of spectacular proportions. But such an effect is far from certain. (...)
Growth benefits investors only when the business in point can invest at incremental returns that are enticing - in other words, only when each dollar used to finance the growth creates over a dollar of long term market value. In the case of a low return business requiring incremental funds, growth can hurt the investor.
In "The Theory of Investment Value", written over 50 years ago, John Burr Williams set forth the equation for value, which we condense here: "The value of any stock, bond or business today is determined by the cash inflows and outflows (discounted at an appropriate interest rate) that can be expected to occur during the remaining life of the asset."
Ifølge Buffets definition kunne GES altså sagtens være en valueinvestering (omend han med sit syn på ledelse næppe ville lægge sine penge i en sådan virksomhed).
Most analysts feel they must choose between two approaches customarily thought to be in opposition: "value" and "growth". Indeed, many investment professionals see any mixing of the two terms as a form of intellectual cross-dressing.
We (Charlie Munger og Buffet selv) view that as fuzzy thinking (in which, it must be confessed, I myself engaged some years ago). In our opinion, the two approaches join at the hip: Growth is _always_ a component in hte calculation of value, constituting a variable whose importance can range from negligible to enormous and whose impact can be negative as well as positive.
In addition, we think the term "value investing" is redundant. What is "investing" if not the act of seeking value at least sufficient to justify the amount paid? (...)
Whether appropriate or not, the term "value investing" is wisely used. Typically, it connotes the purchase of stocks having attributes such as a low ratio of price to book value, a low price earnings ration, or a high divident yield. Unfortunately, such characteristics, even if the appear in combination, are far from determincative as to whether an investor is indeed buying something for what it is worth and is therefore truly operating on the principle of obtaining value in his investments. Correspondingly, opposite characteristics - a high ratio of price to book value, a high price-earnings ratiom and a low dividend yield - are in no way inconsistent with a "value" purchase.
Similarly, business growth, per se, tells us little about value. It's true that growth often has a positive impact on value, sometimes one of spectacular proportions. But such an effect is far from certain. (...)
Growth benefits investors only when the business in point can invest at incremental returns that are enticing - in other words, only when each dollar used to finance the growth creates over a dollar of long term market value. In the case of a low return business requiring incremental funds, growth can hurt the investor.
In "The Theory of Investment Value", written over 50 years ago, John Burr Williams set forth the equation for value, which we condense here: "The value of any stock, bond or business today is determined by the cash inflows and outflows (discounted at an appropriate interest rate) that can be expected to occur during the remaining life of the asset."
Ifølge Buffets definition kunne GES altså sagtens være en valueinvestering (omend han med sit syn på ledelse næppe ville lægge sine penge i en sådan virksomhed).
Det ser jeg altså ikke:
Growth benefits investors only when the business in point can invest at incremental returns that are enticing - in other words, only when each dollar used to finance the growth creates over a dollar of long term market value. In the case of a low return business requiring incremental funds, growth can hurt the investor.
GES leverer jo løbende underskud og har historisk omdannet hver indskudt/investeret krone til xx antal ører, så derfor kan den ikke leve op til value termen.
Growth benefits investors only when the business in point can invest at incremental returns that are enticing - in other words, only when each dollar used to finance the growth creates over a dollar of long term market value. In the case of a low return business requiring incremental funds, growth can hurt the investor.
GES leverer jo løbende underskud og har historisk omdannet hver indskudt/investeret krone til xx antal ører, så derfor kan den ikke leve op til value termen.
15/9 2010 10:35 Valueguy 033471 Det er heller ikke fordi jeg tager stilling til om GES _er_ en valuecase ifølge Buffets definition, men blot at den _kunne_ være det, på trods af at virksomheden ikke lever op til efter den gængse definition (lav p/e, højt udbytte, indre værdi under 1 osv.).
Buffets definition, som er den jeg altid selv tænker på, er jo en helt anden end den man traditionelt bruger.
Buffets definition, som er den jeg altid selv tænker på, er jo en helt anden end den man traditionelt bruger.
15/9 2010 15:36 Occam 033488 I Wikipedia leder "value stock" hen til http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_investing . Der er en lidt bredere definition end hos AnalyseThat:
" ... value investing ... generally involves buying securities whose shares appear underpriced by some form(s) of fundamental analysis."
" ... value investing ... generally involves buying securities whose shares appear underpriced by some form(s) of fundamental analysis."
