Stock prices respond disproportionately to free float availability (or lack thereof) than to theoretical Excel valuations. The growth rate x float decides the PE multiple, that's why every co. can't be 15PE. A co. with just 10% float will deviate that much from its DCF valuation.
If there's 2 similar co.'s, one listed (with 15% float available to investors) vs another co. unlisted. The market will arrive (rightly so) at wildly divergent valuations for both. The second co.'s valuation is based on 100% ownership, while the 1st one on a limited supply basis.
If both were listed with 100% float available to free-market forces, or if both were unlisted, then one can do a side by side DCF, otherwise sharing social media infographics comparing stats of Nestle vs Amul, vs ITC without considering locked up float shows lack of wit.
This is why, self proclaimed geniuses came up with a valuation of 40rs for #Zomato and their चेले चपाटे went to town sharing 'valuation comparisons' of how Zomato is overvalued because so and so other companies are valued so and so
कौनसा गांजा फूंक रहे हो भाई, थोड़ा इधर भी भेजो
Same culprits are now roaming around saying..ohh no no our valuation wasn't wrong, it's these hippie robinhood teens who throw mad money at anything and take it up.
Seriously? do robinhoods have 1 lakh crore in spare cash lying around to pump into just 1 stock?
And if mad money is pumping up stocks, why isn't smart money slaughtering dumb ones and booking profits at their expense?
In reality, the smart money was a net buyer, the OVER-smart money stayed out because some value guru told them to, & now the grapes are sour, so "कल गिरेगा"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
When a stock falls, it opens up deeper arbitrage opportunities during a 'falling knives' scenario. This discount attracts a rapid influx of fresh cash until the arbitrage opportunity gap is filled (i.e the market stabilizes) to the point of 0 alpha.
Earnings yields is mostly stable and smooth curve. It's the stock price that fluctuates due to sentiments, liquidity, news cycle, perception etc.
Let's say the long term earnings yield was growing at 9%. If you bought at
(A), your returns = 5%.
(B), your returns = 15%
If you track yield, you'll get better entry points and get better bang for buck. If you track only price, there's a risk of getting trapped at (A) where all technical indicators are bullish.
The central narrative of my investment narrative has never been and will never be :
a) Catching stocks at the bottom
b) Catching potential multibaggers
c) Being obsessed with the chosen few 'potential multibaggers'
d) Buying 'safe' stocks and avoiding errors at any cost.
"This stock in my portfolio has reported a dip in earnings yield, what to do?"
The answer depends on the yields of other stocks in the PF. Has this yield dipped from 15% to 12%? are others at 10%? this is still your best performer. ADD!
Are there higher yielding stocks? MIGRATE
Keep 30-35 names in the holding, and another ~35 in the watchlist. This is your universe. Don't bother with other names.
Maintain an Excel sheet on all 70 of your candidates to keep track of the yield on each. Keep adding/trimming weights based on relative performance.
You'll get an inkling if you've built a good portfolio when one stock's yield dips, the higher yield alternatives are all found WITHIN your PF.
If all high yield stocks are outside your holding, in your watchlist, then you need to clean your demat and buy your watchlist instead.
#2) Stocks and fundamentals both are bad : Market has bottomed, and people have stopped buying.
This is when the news is doing maximum halla-gulla, people are shit scared and despite good prices, they wont hit the BUY button.
#3) Stocks are rising but fundaments are bad : Bull market has started, but people are not buying.
By this time the market has already concluded its first upmove, but the news is negative and the ground reality is yet to catch up. The smart money has taken it up on anticipation.