Talk:Stock valuation/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Security analysis redirect

Security analysis is a much broader topic which includes bonds and asset-backed securities. At some point I'll be changing that redirect. Just letting people know... and by the way fundamental analysis is the standard in stock valuation. Technical analysis will not give you a value. ImperfectlyInformed 02:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead and fix this redirect. II | (t - c) 08:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

September 2006

Its not garbage. When I first read this page in Sept06, there was a flag asking about a merge with fundamental analysis. The unsigned comment below said NO, because this is garbage.

Please do not merge this page into "Fundamental Analysis". I use fundamental analysis, and I can NOT say I agree with anything here. There are so many things I could argue are wrong, that it is not worth starting. However if you want to use these methods, please go ahead. Better pickings for me.

I left a suggestion to redirect, gave reasons and said I would unless I heard otherwise (Retail Investor 00:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)). Without bothering to talk-back, or give any reasons, my redirect of this page was rudely reversed.

When I objected, on this page (Retail Investor 15:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)) , stating that I had corrected all the points made here on a re-write of fundamental analysis, the 'owner' of the page refused to support his decision. The following is the discussion he was only willing to offer on his own site. I believe that almost all readers of this page can see the errors of his refusal to address points raised, and his last argument that inflection points are absolute values. I won't bother to continue the discussion. (Retail Investor 16:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

Without bothering to talk-back, my redirect of this page was rudely reversed. This is far from the first time 'owners' of pages have refused to support their decisions. In defense of my redirect - If you will bother to look at fundamental analysis you will see a section called You are here. This section does a much better job of covering all (and more) of the stuff here. I WAS going to come back and rewrite this page, but since it is controlled by 'owners' I won't bother. Caveat Emptor. Retail Investor 15:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Please don't decide who owns what, the same could be said about your sense of property. --Pgreenfinch 15:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, but I asked for feedback before redirecting, therefore I made NO claim to ownership. It was you that decided you 'owned' the decision. Why no comment on the value of the content you reinstated vs. my info at "You are here"?
Sorry to say it, but your info doesn't detail the valuation methods other than fundamental analysis. --Pgreenfinch 18:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
And you don't know enough to realize that technical analysis does (specifically) NOT value stocks. That is the whole point of it. 24.82.95.165 00:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Please, don't play on words, TA tries to see if a stock price will rise or fall, I call that valuing. Don't try to interpret what I know or I don't know, although I suppose you know perfectly well that TA is used as an alternative or complement to other "valuing" methods. Btw, FA and TA are two methods among others, there is also Quantitative analysis and Behavioral analysis, and of course subcategories as well also as pricing methods that combine several ones, everybody uses its own little cooking recipe. Thus all those methods, or at least the main ones, should definitively be listed together to give a clear information to investors, so that they don't swallow that there is some unique best practice, some perfect science or some go
There is no play on words. The whole point of TA is that there is no need for valuation. Price changes are only relative. What you know is displayed by what you write. The 'other methods' you talk about on the page are NOT stock valuations. If you had ever tried to use them to give you a stock price you would know that. They are paradigms for "how the markets work". Generalization about the market cannot be used to value stocks. If you had looked at the section at FA I directed you to, you would have seen that. I guess you didn't need to look because you are always rightRetail Investor 16:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
You know pefectly well that in TA jargon you read things like "if it breaks the 42 level, the next level is 47". Now please tell me, if to give a potential price is nor valuation, what is the meaning of valuation? I maintain that there is a lot of valuation methods, new variations are invented everyday (remember the dotcom craze when the number of clicks on a website became a valuation criteria, or the EVA craze among management consultants, or the magic of elliot waves or fibonacci golden number). None is perfect (remember also some scandals about financial analysts recoms), all of them have flaws, major ones often, and I don't see why you want to confuse valuation with just one of them. Why not making readers aware that valuation is a very slippery topic, precisely because you find any kind of methods promoted by every kind of people? . --Pgreenfinch 22:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Some of the above discussion has become too personal to give much objective help on what should happen with this page. I hope people have done some seriously good work on it since then. I'd agree, however, that no one system or business ratio results in a sound valuation, which is why we need multiple models described in (or linked to) from this page. i notices in the page's history that a lot of recent work has been done on it. RMW. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.164.44.59 (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stock valuation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stock_valuation/Archive_1&oldid=996213477"