Lets talk about less risky shares in the current market situation

Company like PLC will not retain profit like other companies because it is owned by People's Bank and PB will try to get more profits from the leasing company. Therefore the director board will ask them to pay dividend when they are capable of doing it.

slstock wrote:

Already answered that before. They retain the profits in the reserves and make the share NAV and PE grow. Also they may give bonus shares . So all these share intrinsic values increase with time . Then buyer and sellers both benefit as the share value appreciates over time.

As I have mentioned earlier I am not talking about growth in one company.If you talk about one company yes it is true both buyer and seller can be benifitted but I am talking about overall money equilibrium in the market.

Yes company retains their profit but if someone pockets out the money from capital gain then it has to come from someone else--not from that retained profit of the company.

Hi all,
Yes, that argument is there, the total amount of cash remains same.

For me it is detrimental to think like that. Even if you invest 10 rupees in 2000 and get 350 now after a real growth of a company that means you are drawing money loose by someone else. How can I be happy about my success?
I think I have fair right to get the return from genuine growth, not from some less-fortunate looser.
Unfortunately in reality it happens as per the formula.

That is why I wrote I do not "talk or worship" it and I have the right at-least to think the other way.
Same as SLSwrote:

It is our money that circulates but does it stay the same? Losers can become winners again if they hold what is good. Can a good company share capital and market share grow? And the cycle continues. Are temporary losses permanent. Just think again.

I think you got it.

Ponzi or Pyramid schemes are better and clear examples.

Chinwi wrote:Hi all,
Yes, that argument is there, the total amount of cash remains same.

For me it is detrimental to think like that. Even if you invest 10 rupees in 2000 and get 350 now after a real growth of a company that means you are drawing money loose by someone else. How can I be happy about my success?
I think I have fair right to get the return from genuine growth, not from some less-fortunate looser.
Unfortunately in reality it happens as per the formula.

That is why I wrote I do not "talk or worship" it and I have the right at-least to think the other way.
Same as SLSwrote:

It is our money that circulates but does it stay the same? Losers can become winners again if they hold what is good. Can a good company share capital and market share grow? And the cycle continues. Are temporary losses permanent. Just think again.

I think you got it.

Ponzi or Pyramid schemes are better and clear examples.

You have exactly written what I wanted to write.I DO hate this reality also but it is what realy happens.

Given a moment some one withdraws money and someone buys by loosing money.Winners and loosers to make sum zero. If this is the issue just think loosers can be winners later. Just think about wnners with time and no loosers. ( if one invests . Can't say same if you gamble with crap). Someone loose money temporary as an investment.
We deposit our money in a bank. We loose temporarily and bank gains. Are we a looser? We in 1 year withdraw money with interest. We win . Does bank loose . If the bank is good everyone is a winner.

Chinwi,

The quote owner of your except is yours truly

Whitebull wrote:

Chinwi wrote:Hi all,
Yes, that argument is there, the total amount of cash remains same.

For me it is detrimental to think like that. Even if you invest 10 rupees in 2000 and get 350 now after a real growth of a company that means you are drawing money loose by someone else. How can I be happy about my success?
I think I have fair right to get the return from genuine growth, not from some less-fortunate looser.
Unfortunately in reality it happens as per the formula.

That is why I wrote I do not "talk or worship" it and I have the right at-least to think the other way.
Same as SLSwrote:

It is our money that circulates but does it stay the same? Losers can become winners again if they hold what is good. Can a good company share capital and market share grow? And the cycle continues. Are temporary losses permanent. Just think again.

I think you got it.

Ponzi or Pyramid schemes are better and clear examples.

You have exactly written what I wanted to write.I DO hate this reality also but it is what realy happens.

Just a thought :

Mudalali sells me a Parippu kilo with profit which he bought from some one. He is a winner now. As I consume it totally and money cannot be realiased again ( I really hope not - ) am I a looser.

bandara 123 wrote:@ smallville I know u can smell something out their.

Two corrections -

01.They offered RS 1.0 for the FY 2011/12. Final dividend Rs0.5 cents paid on April 2012. If anyone owns 1.0m.n shares he or she will get Rs 1.0mn as dividends every year, not Rs 0.5mn.

02. BFL is already included in my list.

@ Chinwi - Not only in the share trading. every where it is same. Just think about our immediate environment and see. every where its same friend. your gain is a loss to the some other person.

PLC is not anyway only a leasing company. It has 5 subsidiaries under its belt from insurance business to property development. It is the only financial company after banks managed to secure an international rating.

Plans on the pipe line - to issue notes to the value of 150mn USD and to list them in singapore stock exchange.

Hey I purposely did that so we can take this further..

There are three companies I noted that would give decent dividends for their share price being less than 20;
PLS, JINS, COCR...

While PLC & COCR both in financial sector, I'm equally bullish on them... I've posted a small analysis of COCR somewhere abt 3 days back (cant remember which thread..). The next big thing I beleive is micro finance..

slstock wrote:Just a thought :

Mudalali sells me a Parippu kilo with profit which he bought from some one. He is a winner now. As I consume it totally and money cannot be realiased again ( I really hope not - ) am I a looser.

Ah no... But u can consume 100g and sell the remaining 900G using a fisherman's "Tharadiya" with 1 rupee profit... u also win again big time

Like the situation for vehicle market in SL.. The ppl who bought cars (second hand, recon or B.new) before the tax hike, for an example, are real winners.. A decent second hand car bought for 1.5 mil then can sell now with at least 1 lak profit.. Well u may have to wait for some time depending on the vehicle model and condition since this market seems to be a bit shaky with no buyers now-a-days. So if this trend continuous, until another tax hike comes at least two ppl can get a profit..

For pyramid schemes, all the big guns at the top are winners.. down the line suckers born..

So my thinking also is if one has to win another has to loose.. But as Chinwi said, doing this in a more decent way is a social service.. Say if I sell, the person who buys the share from me at a premium rate is paying that price cuz company is remarkably doing well.. Further I would've not hold this company for years if I'd not think the same way when I bought it from the previous owner.. At that time it would've meant a good price for him too..

slstock wrote:Just a thought :

Mudalali sells me a Parippu kilo with profit which he bought from some one. He is a winner now. As I consume it totally and money cannot be realiased again ( I really hope not - ) am I a looser.

Let me try to explain the concept this way:

I go to the market and buy a calf today for 5000. Seller is a winner, as the calf is from his cow and his actual cost is only 2000(say). I lost seller won.

Equilibrium: My money given(5000) = sellers cost(2000) + seller's gain (3000)

I give good grass and poonac to the calf, and calf becomes a cow in 3 years.

I take the cow to the market and sell it for 10,000.

Sale price (10,000) = My original cost (5,000) +cost of poonac, grass and Vet. exps(3,000)+ my gain (2,000).

Now Whitebull will say: "In the first instance you lost 3,000 and in the second instance you won 2,000 and someone else lost 2,000".

In the first instance, seller's gain is for his hardwork with the cow, and having a healthy calf.
I foresaw the potential of the calf and paid 3,000 premium for it.

In the second instance, I gained 2,000 because I had the patience with the calf and broght up the calf well, so that the intrinsic value of the calf grew to 10,000. The buyer paid a premium of 5,000 more than my actual value as it has market value exceeding that!

Now Whitebull will ask : Money did not flow from the calf or your cattle stand to ther market, so someone is losing 5,000 when you gain 2,000.

Naturally....because the intrinsic value of the cow is equal or more than 10,000 so the buyer is not losing. He can sell the cow anytime at 10,000 or more as it looks very bubbly and healthy..

Moral of this story: Equilibrium of money should not be looked only at the share market. Take the whole system of sharemarket, companies, company customers, buyers, sellers, service provides, taxmen, auditors etc. etc. (all stake holders). Vaue of the shares increase from the intrinsic value (not always) of the shares. That happens when company sells goods to its customers, makes net profit after all expenses and accumulation of those profits. This accumulation of the profits happens from the market in which it operates. This is reflected in the Share market by its value going up.

So in the above manner, we cannot say someone has to lose so that some one will win.

Seller of the calf won, I also won....Who is the loser? First seller won; calf grew up; I sold it and I also made a good gain...because I am good at it..! The new buyer also is not losing, as the animal is worth equal or more than 10,000!

Does this make things clear?

anu wrote:

slstock wrote:Just a thought :

Mudalali sells me a Parippu kilo with profit which he bought from some one. He is a winner now. As I consume it totally and money cannot be realiased again ( I really hope not - ) am I a looser.

Let me try to explain the concept this way:

I go to the market and buy a calf today for 5000. Seller is a winner, as the calf is from his cow and his actual cost is only 2000(say). I lost seller won.

Equilibrium: My money given(5000) = sellers cost(2000) + seller's gain (3000)

I give good grass and poonac to the calf, and calf becomes a cow in 3 years.

I take the cow to the market and sell it for 10,000.

Sale price (10,000) = My original cost (2,000) +cost of poonac, grass and Vet. exps(3,000)+ my gain (5,000).

Now Whitebull will say: "In the first instance you lost 3,000 and in the second instance you won 5,000 and someone else lost 5,000".

In the first instance, seller's gain is for his hardwork with the cow, and having a healthy calf.
I foresaw the potential of the calf and paid 3,000 premium for it.

In the second instance, I gained 5,000 because I had the patience with the calf and broght up the calf well, so that the intrinsic value of the calf grew to 10,000. The buyer paid a premium of 5,000 more than my actual value as it has market value exceeding that!

Now Whitebull will ask : Money did not flow from the calf or your cattle stand to ther market, so someone is losing 5,000 when you gain 5,000.

Naturally....because the intrinsic value of the cow is equal or more than 10,000 so the buyer is not losing. He can sell the cow anytime at 10,000 or more as it looks very bubbly and healthy..

Moral of this story: Equilibrium of money should not be looked only at the share market. Take the whole system of sharemarket, companies, company customers, buyers, sellers, service provides, taxmen, auditors etc. etc. (all stake holders). Vaue of the shares increase from the intrinsic value (not always) of the shares. That happens when company sells goods to its customers, makes net profit after all expenses and accumulation of those profits. This accumulation of the profits happens from the market in which it operates. This is reflected in the Share market by its value going up.

So in the above manner, we cannot say someone has to lose so that some one will win.

Seller of the calf won, I also won....Who is the loser? First seller won; calf grew up; I sold it and I also made a good gain...because I am good at it..!

Does this make things clear?

No friend I will not say anything like that but I want to give you a little bit of advice:-

"Next time please use ur brain to get a proper example.Do not take this type of cow examples."

Hi Whitebull, I am sorry man, if you got offended..By no means I mean to be sarcastic.

Actually, I too was drawn in to the exchange of posts between you and slstock and tried to think from an entirely different perspective. Probably I shouldn't have used your name there. However, story does not matter. When I looked at from a different angle, things dawned on me ....(influence of my early days of teaching)...take it easy.

anu wrote:Hi Whitebull, I am sorry man, if you got offended..By no means I mean to be sarcastic.

Actually, I too was drawn in to the exchange of posts between you and slstock and tried to think from an entirely different perspective. Probably I shouldn't have used your name there. However, story does not matter. When I looked at from a different angle, things dawned on me ....(influence of my early days of teaching)...take it easy.

No friend being sarcastic is not an offence.....actualy it may motivate the other one to give a proper answer then you should be capable enogh to tolerate the other person's answer.

Whitebull wrote:

anu wrote:Hi Whitebull, I am sorry man, if you got offended..By no means I mean to be sarcastic.

Actually, I too was drawn in to the exchange of posts between you and slstock and tried to think from an entirely different perspective. Probably I shouldn't have used your name there. However, story does not matter. When I looked at from a different angle, things dawned on me ....(influence of my early days of teaching)...take it easy.

No friend being sarcastic is not an offence.....actualy it may motivate the other one to give a proper answer then you should be capable enogh to tolerate the other person's answer.

Friend, I said sorry as I felt your dislike for your name being used there. But I encourage you to forget about that and look only at the facts..Sometimes we are able to understand complicated issues by likening it to rediculously simple examples...This I have seen even many Professors do.
Let's forget about the cell, and see the stuff inside is worthwhile or not.

Thanks for your posts on this.

This is what long term holding and swing trading is all about. We investors got different strategies, ambitions, and agenda to keep ourselves busy. While swing traders stressing themselves to make a rupee within days, long term investors having the joy of well balanced mind as they have no worries imminently. Factor is that the both categories make a living out of investing. If we missed plan A we should be able to execute a plan B. In order to do that, we MUST identify sound PLCs and play with these entities ONLY.
Suppose you bought shares of a PLC with the intention of making a short term gain and you missed the exit on time, you have no worry as you have identified this PLC as a sound entity; you keep them, average them down, and sell later in a brighter day.
If we have done our ground-works right, we are immunized against panic and manipulative rumors. Everyday is a day to have a great day .. !

smallville wrote:

So my thinking also is if one has to win another has to loose.. But as Chinwi said, doing this in a more decent way is a social service.. Say if I sell, the person who buys the share from me at a premium rate is paying that price cuz company is remarkably doing well.. Further I would've not hold this company for years if I'd not think the same way when I bought it from the previous owner.. At that time it would've meant a good price for him too..

Hmm, say we determine a profit target and a time period when we purchase the share. What if we sell when we meet target without looking at optimal profit ? Ofcourse the seller deserves an income for the time of holding if it is an investment. Likewise the buyer can do the same.

To be frank at times I have stopped buying shares of certain companies even if I think I can make short term gain as I feel these companies will go down the drain and then I am making money out of some poor retailer.


I think this is about how we view the situation in out minds and what companies we invest in isn't it?

For me there are many more attractive and undervalued counters than Peoples Leasing..

Denial
Denial is simply refusing to acknowledge that an event has occurred. The person affected simply acts as if nothing has happened. It may also have a significant conscious element, where the sufferer is simply 'turning a blind eye' to an uncomfortable situation.

When you appear to deny a situation, then the other person may join you in the denial or may have to handle it in a way that is not as direct as they otherwise might.