Fundamental Analysis Getting Started Trading with Fundamentals

Most traders tend to use technical analysis to pick their entry and exit points when trading, and swear by those methods, but if it were really that good why are there so many variations? More importantly, why do so many technical traders lose money? The answer is quite simply that they are using charts to predict the probable future price movement, based on patterns. Now that is okay but it is only slightly different from a gambler who might say that, based on the fact that there are 36 number cards and 16 face cards (excluding the 10s), there is a 9/13 chance of drawing a numerical card and as such he will place his money on that.

Now that is acceptable if one were to view the accumulation of wealth as a gamble, but for the serious investor and trader, there has got to be a lot more than probabilities. I recall visiting a gambling website on the evening that England were playing Columbia in a recent friendly; as most people know you could place a bet on either team to win or you could wager that the match will end in a draw. Unfortunately, if your forecast were to turn out wrong you lose your money. But that is gambling and as they say: "You pay your money and you take your chances." However, there is an alternative way of making sure, easy and guaranteed money - it just requires a bit of work. In this case, by simply calculating the odds, the astute would have been able to work out that one could have placed bets on all three outcomes simultaneously and made money regardless of the outcome, albeit a return of only 3.5% to 4.8% of the total wagered. But a wise sage once said that nobody ever went broke taking a profit. The reason I use this example is to emphasise the point that even when one is involved in riskier markets/ventures it is still possible to make money with minimal risk.

This is where the fundamental trader comes into his own and, contrary to popular belief, one need not be a genius to be able to grasp and understand the way things work. What is required in any market is to be able to determine the price level at which an instrument is cheap, fair value or expensive. Based on the fact that I choose to trade shares and occasionally the UK and US indices, I will base this article on these instruments, but in truth, the same theories apply across most if not all markets.

Given that shares are a share of a business it stands to reason that as long as the profits keep going up and the cash registers keep ringing; the shares will follow suit. A very crude example is that if I own 10% of the local supermarket and the profits double over the next 5 years, I will expect my original investment to double as well (all things remaining equal).

The value of quoted shares is determined by supply and demand and whenever one or the other moves out of line, the price will end up being too low or too high. How do we determine this?

Let us assume that I am currently looking at the shares of Barclays Bank. I would start by comparing it with other banks such as HSBC, LloydsTSB, Royal Bank Of Scotland and NatWest. If we assume that the average PE ratio (price divided by earnings) of the banking sector is 12, then at any level higher than that Barclays shares are relatively expensive and at any lower level they are relatively cheap. I would now move on to another yardstick, which might be the dividend yield, and we might assume that the average yield of the banking sector is 3.8%. If Barclays shares currently yield 4.2% then they are relatively cheap on a yield basis and if they only yield 3% they are relatively expensive. There are other ratios that might be used like the Return On Capital Employed (ROCE); Book to Sales; Net Asset Value; Earnings Before Interest Tax Depreciation and Amortisation (EBITDA). The last one is, in my opinion, an absolute nonsense and one is better off ignoring it when trying to calculate fair value: it is a legacy of the Dot Com era (and a bad one at that).

If we were to assume that Barclays has a PE ratio of 10 and a yield of 4.2%, then so far so good, the next thing to take into consideration would be the company's growth prospects. The best thing to do is check the last 3 years results, which might show that it has an average growth rate of 15%. Dividing the PE ratio of 10 by the growth rate of 15 gives a figure of 0.66, this is known as the PEG ratio (any figure below 1 is generally good value).

It seems that I am on to a winner here and the last thing I would need to check before I place the buy order is that the economy is not about to collapse bringing a substantial rise in bad debts. Once I am happy that this will not happen I buy the shares in the knowledge that sooner or later, the market will wake up to the fact that the shares were previously under priced.

The whole procedure above takes less than 30 minutes and a smart 15 year old could perform this basic exercise. The beauty of it is that you would not have lost any money during the Technology bubble. Some people were buying shares that were priced based on the number of times people viewed the website. Hello? Why would I buy a fashion boutique based on the number of people that look at the mannequins through the window? It is all about sales, cash flow, profits and assets. Why would any rational thinking individual pay 1000 times earnings or 100 times sales for a company that has no assets, that was started within the last 12 months and is run by a couple of high school dropouts? The astute were busy snapping up the cyclicals, utilities, mining, banking stocks etc. that were extremely cheap on fundamentals and yielding more than bank deposits. When the music stopped, the technology speculators ended up without chairs (and in some cases they lost their beds as well).

By the time the charts told them the shares were heading for the abyss, it was too late, somewhat akin to trying to flee from a tornado or tidal wave. Ask yourself if you would put your boat out to sea if you knew that this would occur: obviously not. Neither would you head for the ski slopes if you had been told about an impending snowstorm. Fortunately, fundamentals are like the weatherman: you receive advanced warnings of the impending direction of the markets.

Whenever I see shares that are way out of line with their fundamentals I latch onto them and get ready to pull the trigger. It does not always have to be a case of buying (going long), it could be selling (shorting) - one simply reverses the criteria. A good example is Google: the speculators are piling in as if they are the best thing since sliced bread and they are currently priced around $293 per share. Now if I did not consider them good value at $115, $150, $180, $200 or even $250, why would I buy them at $293? I am either a momentum trader along for the ride, a technical trader following the steep gradient on my chart or a fool looking for gold. Before anyone says "But what about the massive profits that could have been obtained?" remember that trading with hindsight is impossible. More importantly, I used to do some work for a bookmaker and he once said, "Son it is not about the winners that you miss but the losers you do not back." These shares are strictly for gamblers and those that have a high pain threshold and in my opinion there are much better trades elsewhere.

Trading based on fundamentals may not be exciting and you are very unlikely to grab any headlines but you certainly will not be parted from all your money. Sure and steady capital growth will be your reward and you will sleep well at night. I often laugh when I hear people say that they cannot leave trades running overnight because their stops might get hit but that is because they are taking on unnecessary risk. (Am I buying shares in BP or Exxon because they are good value or because I believe oil will hit $75 per barrel? Oil reaching those lofty levels should be a bonus). Sound trading based on fundamentals does not require tight stops: whenever they are hit, it means that the analysis was wrong or the company's fundamentals have changed. You take the knock on the chin and move on because there are lots more fish in the sea.

On a final note, one does not require deep pockets to trade in this manner, as one can use spread betting which offers gearing of at least 10:1, CFDs which offer 5:1 or outright stock purchases. Depending on the method used and the number of open positions, it is possible to start and be profitable with as little as £2,500 starting capital (or something in that region). If one is astute it is quite feasible to compound the money and turn it into a large amount of capital.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Socrates,
I believe there is a way to use FA and TA and I call it PA...psychological analysis which blends what I think the two activist grups will do and yes I would consider institutional activity to be important.....best way I can describe it is to show this thread that I started ages ago when I was first trying to make the transition to this shorter term arena...found it...here it is..by the way I have moved on a bit ;) ...I don't need the lines all over the chart anymore ;)

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/showthread.php?t=8848
 
Socrates,

Great post (40) and this further explains the need for stock selection in trading. As you have stated, it is pointless trading in stocks that lack professional interest/participation (penny shares, small caps etc.) due to the fact that they would lack volume; tend to show extreme volatility and have wide spreads.

However, would you agree that whilst you have said that an unhealthy stock will not attract a lot of activity due to the perception of too much risk - delisting, suspension & illiquidity; this is not always the case? There are quite a few instances when the volume actually soars due to the reasons you have given. The fear factor leads to the professionals running for the exits at almost any price. The bargain hunters pile in looking for perceived value. Short term traders see this as a chance to smash and grab. Finally, comes the group that feel it is similar to the high street sales and that they are getting shares on the basis of "buy 1 get 3 free".

Under these circumstances, the professional interest will dry up but traders will/should make money provided they know what they are doing and have set criteria. It would not matter that they rely on charts for their entry/exit points.
 
chump said:
Socrates,
I believe there is a way to use FA and TA and I call it PA...psychological analysis which blends what I think the two activist grups will do and yes I would consider institutional activity to be important.....best way I can describe it is to show this thread that I started ages ago when I was first trying to make the transition to this shorter term arena...found it...here it is..by the way I have moved on a bit ;) ...I don't need the lines all over the chart anymore ;)

http://www.trade2win.com/boards/showthread.php?t=8848
Hello Sir, Am I correct in assuming that what you really mean is Analytical Blending rather than psychological analysis ? I thnk in practical reality it would be very difficult to carry out a psychological analysis in the purest sense because probably to do it effectively would require a kind of continuous poll mechanism to monitor sentiment. But you see, I do not look to sentiment, nor do I watch the news, or listen to what the pundits say. I don't even read newspapers at all during the week. I treat myself to the Sunday Times on weekends and that is all. I refuse to be contaminated by the majority popular opinion, because in my view, it is nearly always wrong.

Having said this, what really interests me is the professional posture, which is what I follow.
This is because the public is not empowered to push prices up or down. The public is led, the public does not lead. Therefore from my viewpoint public opinion is not something I pay attention to at all, but instead consider proffessional activity to be the beacon.

With regard to all the lines
icon10.gif
, you know, we all have to start somewhere. It is more a matter of evolvement and trading maturity rather than convenience. I do not use any indicators whatsoever. I just read the development of price against volume as these unfold, bar by bar at a mechanical level, I read the tape at a proactive level, and I read the price inference at an intuitivve level, the intent at what you could say is a futurological level, and that is the Analytical Blending that is the basis for my work.
 
Analytical blending...psychological analysis ...not sure the terminology is that important...the concept is though...if you know what the competition uses toolwise to make decisions then you can analyse looking for their actions and intentions ..actions and intentions have a psychological basis hence my terminology ..thanks for your input

LOL...footnote...I get the papers online .read them and discount most of the information that is not factually verifiable ..I don't listen to news either ;) ..but , LOL I actually buy the Sunday Times ,because on Sunday I don't manage my time ...LOL life's ironies
 
LION63 said:
Socrates,

Great post (40) and this further explains the need for stock selection in trading. As you have stated, it is pointless trading in stocks that lack professional interest/participation (penny shares, small caps etc.) due to the fact that they would lack volume; tend to show extreme volatility and have wide spreads.

However, would you agree that whilst you have said that an unhealthy stock will not attract a lot of activity due to the perception of too much risk - delisting, suspension & illiquidity; this is not always the case? There are quite a few instances when the volume actually soars due to the reasons you have given. The fear factor leads to the professionals running for the exits at almost any price. The bargain hunters pile in looking for perceived value. Short term traders see this as a chance to smash and grab. Finally, comes the group that feel it is similar to the high street sales and that they are getting shares on the basis of "buy 1 get 3 free".

Under these circumstances, the professional interest will dry up but traders will/should make money provided they know what they are doing and have set criteria. It would not matter that they rely on charts for their entry/exit points.
I would agree with you that it is pointless to mess around with penny stocks, because they can prove to be very dangerous for the reasons you so aptly describe.

The problem that I have under consideration at the moment with regard to your second paragraph, is that although I do not disagree with it in principle as I said to you I need to put my undivided attention on this matter to give it the focus it deserves. This is because in my experience there is a line that divides stocks which are not completely sunk but are still floating but with difficulty, against those that appear to be still floating but are well and truly submerged and waterlogged, rendering refloating impractical. I need some time to properly consider these ideas you present and will let you have my views in due course, I promise.
 
chump said:
Analytical blending...psychological analysis ...not sure the terminology is that important...the concept is though...if you know what the competition uses toolwise to make decisions then you can analyse looking for their actions and intentions ..actions and intentions have a psychological basis hence my terminology ..thanks for your input

LOL...footnote...I get the papers online .read them and discount most of the information that is not factually verifiable ..I don't listen to news either ;) ..but , LOL I actually buy the Sunday Times ,because on Sunday I don't manage my time ...LOL life's ironies
You see, in my early days I also used to subscribe to that viewpoint but it has hardened over the years into being able to adopt a professional posture devoid of any emotions, and for this reason I deal with all of it from what is necessarily a professional standpoint. This causes me not to consider the psychological element but only the stark cold reality of what unfolds.

You have just made me realise how it is that the use of time is made to change on non trading days, and how it is that I am able to subliminally accept the Sunday Papers as "a treat" or a weekend "luxury". LOL.
 
What a pleasure to read such an excellent thread with such solid sensible and positive contributions :)
Richard
 
Maybe FA on individual stock is too much for some people? TA (on it's own) maybe the 'lazy' option? But FA and TA analysis used together sounds the best option for any trader, or would it boil down to results. Trade either/or and then the combination? By the way, did any of you sell ICI shares a few years ago? Was it FA, TA or a combination? My father works there, he was given the option of the share scheme, obviously he has not lost any of his own money, but, when things were 'good' he thought the skies were the limit? My father does not trade at all, i just thought it was quite funny the way 'non-traders' view the market? Rude!
 
Fundamental analysis is only a chore when one is learning the ropes, after a few goes it becomes second nature and under normal circumstances takes less than an hour per company to establish if the company has potential or not (long/short). Another factor that many people tend to overlook is that we are not talking about researching hundreds of companies, the individual might start with say 10 to 20 companies and get to know them very well.

Whenever something else comes along that will be researched and if it merits more than a casual observation as much information as possible is reviewed, if it does not, it is consigned to the trash can. I have 14 companies that I look at on a regular basis and a secondary list of 16, other than that, I just take a passing interest in other companies until or unless I come across something compelling.

It is really similar to those that use technical analysis on select instruments and shares as opposed to using the scatter gun approach. We hear them using phrases like; "it talks to me", "I can sense the next move". Some may think that they are fruit cakes or just plain arrogant but that is not the case, when an individual seeks to excel at what they do and they put in the effort, they attain a level that the lazy bunch can only dream of.

Most traders actually use a combination of fundamental and technical analysis and I would go as far as saying that anyone who has a very good understanding of both and employs them properly will survive in the markets and make decent returns.

Employees that are part of a company share scheme tend to be long term holders and they do not view their holdings the way we do. That is the reason that you seldomnly hear them talking about the share price and you certainly will not find them doing any kind of analysis. What they all have in common though is that whilst the shares are going up, they are over the moon and they lament about not having more than the few hundred/thousand that they have. Once the shares tank they sing from a different book....I wish I had sold them a few months ago and gone on a holiday or bought a car etc.
 
LION 63, Too right! Right, FA of an index? Let's say the Dow! FA of the individual companies? Worth it or not? Analysing indexes? Is it worth it? I would say that applying FA and TA (where indexes are concerned) may be a drawn out process that is not needed? FTSE 100, trawl that bugger! My point is, FA, has it's limitations, TA does not! Any thoughts, by the way i'm not being arguementitve, just idiotic! Rude.
 
You frequently read on these boards how it is that a plan is being discussed or a system is being reviewed or a formula is being argued over. But you never encounter anybody constructively tackling a strategy, which is a planned method of achieving some objective.

A strategy is part of a method, and a method is a systematic and ordered way of doing things. A method and a system are very different things, yet the error of subsituting one for the other is seen to be committed repeatedly.

Now, what LION describes above is not a system, or a plan, or a formula but a method. A systematic method.

What happens is that when a method is adopted, and because the sequence does not vary, it becomes familiar, even though at first it starts by being unfamilar, a chore as he says, and then with the passage of time, gets easier with repetition and then one day it has become familar, second nature, you see ?

And all of this equally applies to everything in life, and, if it applies to everything in life and we grow to become familiar with all the things we do on a regular basis because we do them regularly , then we end up doing things properly, but as part of second nature.

And the same idea applies to analysis, and it does not matter whether it is technical or fundamental or a blend of both. The best way to gain familiarity with it is to do everything everytime in the same sequence, so that it becomes an ingrained habit, and ultimately second nature, and then, it all becomes very easy, you see ?

Now, but if every time you go about carrying out a task you proceed to attack it in a different way, no wonder you are apt to become confused, and this confusion may be subconscious, not conscious, but that on its own is enough to unsettle you enough to spoil your rythm, and to cramp your style.

This being understood, and it's significance accepted, you now ought to put into practice this idea, because this idea is part of self discipline in becoming an effective investor or trader, or both.

No one can do this for you, you have to do it yourself, on your own as the result of making a conscious decision to do so.

It does not matter how many books you read or how many seminars you attend, or how many CDs you've got or how many threads you read, none of it will have any reality for you until you deliberately set about doing it.

It is a major foundation concept you must not ignore, because without it you effectively cannot progress.
 
Last edited:
Socs, i do not disagree with you regarding post 52, whatsoever! If something works for an individual....Why change it? But self improvement is not a bad thing, but, market wise, something that works is obviously very good, let's face it! I suppose it's up to the individual to refine thier own 'method'. If it works, maybe refinement is not needed, it's not neccessary? To be honest once you are in the 5% brigade, who gives a poo! Thats a coincidence, the number '5' and '%' are on the same key on my keyboard? Rude.
 
Rudeboy,

There is nothing wrong in asking questions and as far as I am aware it is not yet considered a crime in the UK. I tend to find that if I ask a few questions even if I disregard most of the answers at least one will be of some benefit.

Analysing the indices is not too difficult provided one is aware of the economy (interest rates, inflation, unemployment, GDP etc. etc.) which is why I trade the FTSE100 and the DOW. Some may wonder why I do not trade the NASDAQ but I have reasoned that it does not reflect underlying economic factors enough and it is far too violent for my liking. The S&P is not for me either because it has far too many constituents and I have never tried to work out the individual weightings of the various companies.

Since you mentioned the DOW, we will stick to that. It is sufficient to have a basic knowledge of the constituents and their business activities without trawling through their respective accounts and annual reports. It is also worth noting the reporting dates of the heavyweights and any likely effect that positive/negative releases might have on the market. Let us assume that company A is a DOW constituent with a share price of $50 and it gets caught up in a scandal which you are fully aware of, you might form the view that 20% will be lopped off the share price by the time the dust settles. However, you were going to open a long position on the basis that you were generally bullish of the market as a whole and you thought that you would see a rise of about 100 points within a week. Company A's predicament should cause you to pause because that 20% fall equates to $10 which is equal to 70 points off the DOW, now that 100 point rise does not look so attractive (as 100 -70 = 30 points) and you might decide to pass.

The DOW has been stuck in a reasonably tight range for the last few weeks and people are wondering when it will break out of the range and as the posts on the DOW thread show, nobody has a clue or any idea of when it will happen or which direction it will be in. One should realise that most of the people that contribute to that thread are quite clever and have years of market experience but they do lack the possession of a crystal ball and they accept that. All of those that trade based on what they deduce from the charts say that if X happens then Y will probably follow and if B happens C will probably follow. That is very good and there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

The fundamental traders have a different view and approach which is based on the following assumptions - Oil is a tax on consumers so as the price rises the consumer has less disposable income. The consumer is already indebted to his eyeballs and finds it hard to obtain more credit on flexible terms. Average incomes are not keeping pace with inflation (and so on......). Since the consumer has less disposable income, retailers, manufacturers etc. sell fewer goods and suffer from lower revenues. Companies with lower revenues have less to invest in plants, equipment and hire fewer workers; worse still, they have lower profits. Lower incomes and profits translate as lower taxation for the government, to plug the gap it means extra borrowing in the form of bonds. Higher borrowings and deficit lead to a lower Dollar which means the price of imports rises and that brings higher inflation which further depresses the currency.............................. It can thus be inferred that we are more likely to see 9500 on the DOW before we see 11500.

Kindly remember that this is just a response to the question about trading the DOW or any other index based on fundamentals and in no way does it constitute a prediction as to the direction of the DOW or any other index.
 
But, if i may, i will ask the question again! Does FA have it's limitations as oppose to TA? Rude.
 
P.S. Lion, i had already put post 55 through before your post 54. J ust to clarify things. Rude.
 
I think i have mentioned this before, but, can some FA/TA be too simuataneous for a trader to realise?
 
If it were perfect I would already own Wall Street, it has many limitations. As Socrates has been at pain to explain it is the implementation of the method, the continuous practice and the eagerness/willingness to better the method that eventually makes it successful (FA or TA).

The article was not written to besmirch or belittle exponents of technical analysis or to try and imply that technical analysis is a poor relation. The purpose was to show that there are alternative and complimentary ways of trading. Some of the people I respect the most are technical traders but they have taken what they do to another level, they concentrate on one or two decent methods that they understand and that work for them and get better by the day.

Take people like User, Socrates, Ducat998, Chartman, NAZ (please do not take offence if your name was not included); they may not be everyone's cup of tea and they may not endear themselves to all and sundry but they know their stuff. The reason is quite simply that they have found something that works for them, adopted the method and got very good at it. You will not find them going from one silly idea to another seeking the holy grail because to a large extent they have already found it.
 
Lion, that is true! I do not ever mean to be arguementitive, at worst, i play the devil's advocate. But i always mean it in the best intentions. Hope this makes sense? RB.
 
LION63 said:
Rudeboy,

There is nothing wrong in asking questions and as far as I am aware it is not yet considered a crime in the UK. I tend to find that if I ask a few questions even if I disregard most of the answers at least one will be of some benefit.

Analysing the indices is not too difficult provided one is aware of the economy (interest rates, inflation, unemployment, GDP etc. etc.) which is why I trade the FTSE100 and the DOW. Some may wonder why I do not trade the NASDAQ but I have reasoned that it does not reflect underlying economic factors enough and it is far too violent for my liking. The S&P is not for me either because it has far too many constituents and I have never tried to work out the individual weightings of the various companies.

Since you mentioned the DOW, we will stick to that. It is sufficient to have a basic knowledge of the constituents and their business activities without trawling through their respective accounts and annual reports. It is also worth noting the reporting dates of the heavyweights and any likely effect that positive/negative releases might have on the market. Let us assume that company A is a DOW constituent with a share price of $50 and it gets caught up in a scandal which you are fully aware of, you might form the view that 20% will be lopped off the share price by the time the dust settles. However, you were going to open a long position on the basis that you were generally bullish of the market as a whole and you thought that you would see a rise of about 100 points within a week. Company A's predicament should cause you to pause because that 20% fall equates to $10 which is equal to 70 points off the DOW, now that 100 point rise does not look so attractive (as 100 -70 = 30 points) and you might decide to pass.

The DOW has been stuck in a reasonably tight range for the last few weeks and people are wondering when it will break out of the range and as the posts on the DOW thread show, nobody has a clue or any idea of when it will happen or which direction it will be in. One should realise that most of the people that contribute to that thread are quite clever and have years of market experience but they do lack the possession of a crystal ball and they accept that. All of those that trade based on what they deduce from the charts say that if X happens then Y will probably follow and if B happens C will probably follow. That is very good and there is nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

The fundamental traders have a different view and approach which is based on the following assumptions - Oil is a tax on consumers so as the price rises the consumer has less disposable income. The consumer is already indebted to his eyeballs and finds it hard to obtain more credit on flexible terms. Average incomes are not keeping pace with inflation (and so on......). Since the consumer has less disposable income, retailers, manufacturers etc. sell fewer goods and suffer from lower revenues. Companies with lower revenues have less to invest in plants, equipment and hire fewer workers; worse still, they have lower profits. Lower incomes and profits translate as lower taxation for the government, to plug the gap it means extra borrowing in the form of bonds. Higher borrowings and deficit lead to a lower Dollar which means the price of imports rises and that brings higher inflation which further depresses the currency.............................. It can thus be inferred that we are more likely to see 9500 on the DOW before we see 11500.

Kindly remember that this is just a response to the question about trading the DOW or any other index based on fundamentals and in no way does it constitute a prediction as to the direction of the DOW or any other index.
I must comment that your latest post above contains within it the best current compressed synopsis of underlying factors affecting the US Economy in particular and the US Markets in general ever to be seen on these boards. My compliments to you.
 
Top