Do Fundamentals Matter Anymore in Stock Markets?
All you have to do is ask Warren Buffet that question and you'll have your answer! (grin)  He is the very definition of someone who relies on the fundamentals as a major part of his investment decisions. Investors who rely on analysis of fundamentals tend to be more long-term strategic planners than most other investors, who seem more focused on momentum-based thinking. There are some industries which have historically low P/E ratios, such as utilities, but I don't think that implies poor growth prospects.  How often does a utility go out of business?   I think oftentimes if you really look into the numbers, there are companies reporting higher earnings and earnings growth, but is that top-line growth, or is it the result of cost-cutting and other measures which artificially imply a healthy and growing company?  A healthy company is one which shows year-over-year organic growth in revenues and earnings from sales, not one which has to continually make new acquisitions or use accounting tricks to dress up the bottom line. Is it possible to do well by investing in companies with solid fundamentals?  Absolutely.  You may not realize the same rate of short-term returns as others who use momentum-based trading strategies, but over the long haul I'm willing to bet you'll see a better overall average return than they do. Are you implying that Amazon is a better investment than GE because Amazon's P/E is 175 while GE's is only 27?  Or that GE is a better investment than Apple because Apple's P/E is just 13.  There are a lot of other ratios to consider than P/E.  I personally view high P/E numbers as a red flag.  One way to think of a P/E ratio is the number of years it's expected for the company to earn its market cap.  (Share price divided by annual earnings per share)  It will take Amazon 175 years to earn $353 billion. If I was going to buy a dry cleaners, I would not pay the owner 175 years of earnings to take control of it, I'd never see my investment back. To your point.  There is so much future growth seemingly built in to today's stock market that even when a company posts higher than expected earnings, the company's stock may take a hit because maybe future prospects are a little less bright than everyone thought yesterday. The point of fundamental analysis is that you want to look at a company's management style and financial strategies.  How is it paying its debt?  How is it accumulating the debt?  How is it's return on assets?  How is the return on assets trending?  This way when you look at a few companies in the same market segment you may have a better shot at picking the winner over time.  The company that piles on new debt for every new project is likely to continue that path in to oblivion, regardless of the P/E ratio. (or some other equally less forward thinking management practice that you uncover in your fundamental analysis efforts). And I'll add... No amount of historical good decision making from a company's management can prepare for a total market downturn, or lack of investor confidence in general.  The market is the market; sometimes it's up irrationally, sometimes it's down irrationally. It sounds to me like you may not be defining fundamental investing very well, which is why it may seem like it doesn't matter.  Fundamental investing means valuing a stock based on your estimate of its future profitability (and thus cash flows and dividends).  One way to do this is to look at the multiples you have described.  But multiples are inherently backward-looking so for firms with good growth prospects, they can be very poor estimates of future profitability. When you see a firm with ratios way out of whack with other firms, you can conclude that the market thinks that firm has a lot of future growth possibilities.  That's all. It could be that the market is overestimating that growth, but you would need more information in order to conclude that.  We call Warren Buffet a fundamental investor because he tends to think the market has made a mistake and overvalued many firms with crazy ratios.  That may be in many cases, but it doesn't necessarily mean those investors are not using fundamental analysis to come up with their valuations. Fundamental investing is still very much relevant and is probably the primary determinant of stock prices.  It's just that fundamental investing encompasses estimating things like future growth and innovation, which is a lot more than just looking at the ratios you have described.
"Just read the book Flash Boys by Michael Lewis.  It describes this process in detail, albeit a bit more dramatically than it has to.  Basically what ""HFTs"" (high frequency traders) do is they set up their line to the exchange so its microseconds faster than everyone else.  Then they test out the market with tiny orders, seeing how fast it's getting filled - if these are getting filled immediately, it probably means there's a big order coming in from an investor.  So the algorithm - and it's all algo-based obviously because no human can remotely hope to catch this - will detect that as soon as there's a spike in volume, it will buy all of the volume at the current price, and sell it back for higher, forcing the big investor to take on higher prices.    Another case is that some HFTs can basically buy the entire trade book from an exchange like Nasdaq.  So every time someone places a market order for 200 shares of a 6.5 stock, the HFT will see it, buy up all the current stock from say 6.5-6.6 and sell it back at 6.7.  Not rocket science if you already get info about the trade coming in, in fact this is basically market making but performed by an ""evil HFT"" instead of a ""trustworthy bank.""    But honestly there are a lot more ways to make money from HFT than front-running, which isn't even possible anymore because exchanges no longer sell their books to HFTs." "The hardest part seems to be knowing exactly when to sell the stock.  Well yes, that's the problem with all stock investing. Reports come out all the time, sometimes even from very smart people with no motivation to lie, about expected earnings for this company, or for that industry. Whether those predictions come true is something you will only find out with time. What you are considering is using financial information available to you (and equally available to the public) to make investment choices. This is called 'fundamental analysis'; that is, the analysis of the fundamentals of a business and what it should be worth. It forms the basis of how many investment firms decide where to put their money.  In a perfectly 'efficient' market, all information available to the public is immediately factored into the market price for that company's stock. ie: if a bank report states with absolute certainty (through leaked documents) that Coca-Cola is going to announce 10% revenue growth tomorrow, then everyone will immediately buy Coca-Cola stock today, and then tomorrow there would be no impact. Even if PwC is 100% accurate in its predictions, if the rest of the market agrees with them, then the price at the time of IPO would equal the future value of the cashflows, meaning there would be no gain unless results surpassed expectations. So what you are proposing is to take one sliver of the information available to the public (have you also read all publicly available reports on those businesses and their industries?), and using that to make a high risk investment. Are you going to do better than the investment firms that have teams of researchers and years of experience in the investment world? You can do quite well by picking individual stocks, but you can also lose a lot of money if you do it haphazardly. Be aware that there is risk in doing any type of investing. There is higher than average risk if you invest in equities ('the stock market'). There is higher risk still, if you pick individual stocks. There is yet even higher risk, if you pick small startup companies.  There are some specific interesting side-elements with your proposal to purchase stock about to have an IPO - those are better dealt with in a separate question if you want more information; search this site for 'IPO' and you should find a good starting point. In short, the company about to go public will hire a firm of analysts who will try to calculate the best price the public will accept for an offering of shares. Stock often goes up after IPO, but not always. Sometimes the company doesn't even fill its full IPO order, adding a new type of risk to a potential investor, that the stock will drop on day 1. Consider an analogy outside the investing world:  Let's say Auto Trader magazine prints an article that says ""all 2015 Honda Civics are worth $15,000 if they have less than 50,000 Miles."" Assume you have no particular knowledge about cars. If you read this article, and you see an ad in the paper the next day for a Honda Civic with 40k miles, should you buy it for $14k? The answer is not without more research. And even if you determine enough about cars to find one for $14k that you can reasonably sell for $15k, there's a whole world of mechanics out there who buy and sell cars for a living, and they have an edge both because they can repair the cars themselves to sell for more, and also because they have experience to spot low-offers faster than you. And if you pick a clunker (or a stock that doesn't perform even when everyone expected it would), then you could lose some serious money. As with buying and selling individual stocks, there is money to be made from car trading, but that money gets made by people who really know what they're doing. People who go in without full information are the ones who lose money in the long run." It could be an endless number of reasons for it.  It could simply just be a break through a long term resistance causing technical traders to jump in.  It could be an analyst putting out a buy recommendation.  If fundamentals have not changed then maybe the technicals have changed. Momentum could have reached an oversold position causing new buyers to enter the market. Without knowing the actual stock, its fundamentals and its technicals, no one will ever know exactly why. "These are meaningless statistics on multiple levels:  1. These value rises are as of 2016. This does not indicate any sort of significant trend in the rise in value of these bags over time. Did they lose 30% in 2015? Will value stagnate in 2018?  2. Even if a trend were established (it is not), it doesn't suggest any sort of future movements whatsoever, as past price movements don't ensure future movements.  3. The fundamental idea of ""investing"" in an accessory is questionable at best. While collectors will buy things like cars and art, and some will sit on them as stores of value, the economics of generating future returns on these items is not so logically sound as with stocks or bonds. These collectors items do not generate future value in a way that produces cash flows. An individual has to purely hope that somebody is willing to pay more for it in the future; the item does not fundamentally necessitate higher payment. This is the fundamental problem also with ""investing"" in commodities, and why a fundamentalist like Buffet would never do it. You bet on a commodity move (hopefully with information that you believe the market to be incorrectly synthesizing); you don't really ""invest"" in one. What makes a stock or bond (a company) different is that a company can be thought of as a black box that prints more money than it is fed. We feed money into a company as investors; the company uses that money to buy assets (e.g. Machines, inventory) at book value; the assets are made to work in tandem to produce goods/services that have more value than the sum of their parts; those goods/services are sold at the now higher value for a profit, and cash flows are returned to investors for an annual return on your investment (sometimes dividends aren't paid, but are reinvested with the expectation that reinvestment will lead to far larger dividends in the future). As such, the money investors feed into a company is turned into more money at the other end, and thus the company has produced more value than it's inputs alone. It has done so through the combination of resources (assets) in a way that makes their value greater than the sum of their parts. A company fundamentally is a logical investment (barring doubts about management's ability to create this value). It is like a black box that prints more money over time than you feed it. Purses do not; gold does not; oil does not.  Don't invest in purses. Collect then if you love them, but don't bank on a payday." Some years your portfolio may perform better than the benchmark, and some years it may be the other way around.  Without a benchmark you will never know. And by the way if you choose poorly, you will never beat the benchmark. If the benchmark goes up 20% but your fund/investment only went up 3% you did make money, but you might want to reevaluate your strategy. This conversation is about energy futures, not generic securities. A moderately wealthy dilettante without a background in the subject is at an extreme disadvantage - since as a trader your edge is being able to identify market inefficiencies and profit from them, it's difficult to imagine being able to do this in a market you do not understand. Get used to it. This trend won't change while investors are 100% focused on quarterly results at the expense of long-term investment and growth strategies from companies. Successful businesses that don't need a large capital injection will stay the course knowing that in mid to long-term their net worth will be higher. No, it is the same as it has always been. The market gives a valuation of a company based off its expected discounted cash flow.   Only problem we see is that many growth companies ($TSLA!!!) are being given the benefit of the doubt in regards to their expected growth and future profitability. **IF** Tesla does grow as many expect, then current share prices are definitely justifiable. But since when do we price things based on their ideal scenario? This market has lost its grip on risk-reward and risk tolerance. Does even a Tesla bull think that the company even has a &gt;10% chance at ever exceeding expectations in regards to near-future growth or profitability? And even those who are invested in the company admit there is a serious chance that Tesla fails to reach expectations for growth/margins.  Either way the market will cool soon. And negative cash flow companies with ultra-aggressive growth targets will be punished.  ---  If I wasn't poor/saving up to buy a house. I'd love to purchase 100 [January 2019 $50 Put Leaps at a cost of $0.55 each](http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/option-chain/190118P00050000-tsla-put) (total cost $5,500).  A Tesla BK before January 18th 2019 would mean $50x100x100 - $5,500 = **$494,500** net profit WOW.  A reduction in market cap to $5 Billion and increase in outstanding shares to 200 million (currently at 167M) results in a net profit of **$244,500**  A reduction in market cap to $10 Billion with the same share dilution results in share price of $50 and thus a full loss of my $5,500. :(