Bergeron or Ovechkin

[Crosbyfan]

That depends.....are you using a 2-stage dividend model and calculating intrinsic value, or are you trying to lose your money day trading and using technical analysis.......I'm a fundamental analysis guy myself, with technical (usually an 18/9 lagging indicator) used to back up some of my findings if I forsee a suden shift in valuation.

What would be the English translation of the above?

EDIT: Notice any "Sudden Shifts in Bergeron's value in the last couple years?

 

[craig1]

What would be the English translation of the above?

Basic....very, very basic....stock analysis. You did say value it as a stock....So I'm asking you for the preferred technique. Personally, I'd invest in AO with a Covered Put to hedge downside.....You?

 

[craig1]

EDIT: Notice any "Sudden Shifts in Bergeron's value in the last couple years?

Yes. A while ago. But forecast that out into the future. That shows exteme volatility compared to a standard player volatility level. Forecasting gets murky, and does not allow for long-term lagging indicators to be successfully used. Short-Term indicators though can be used if your trying to move into a market in a "Short" position.

Generally......this shift does not forecast into future earnings. If anything, this would be a time when profit taking would ensue and we would see a general security sell-off. In turn, price level would drop dramatically to a point where investors could forsee the possibility of receiving a minimal acceptable Rate of Return.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Basic....very, very basic....stock analysis. You did say value it as a stock....So I'm asking you for the preferred technique. Personally, I'd invest in AO with a Covered Put to hedge downside.....You?

AND BERGERON? If you put a dollar on him two years ago you could retire by now. What I seem to be getting is that while Bergeron has improved rapidly he is already near his peak. I just don't agree with this. Not that this has any bearing on Ovechkinwho looks like a solid investment also.

 

[Crosbyfan]

Yes. A while ago. But forecast that out into the future. That shows exteme volatility compared to a standard player volatility level. Forecasting gets murky, and does not allow for long-term lagging indicators to be successfully used. Short-Term indicators though can be used if your trying to move into a market in a "Short" position.

Generally......this shift does not forecast into future earnings. If anything, this would be a time when profit taking would ensue and we would see a general security sell-off. In turn, price level would drop dramatically to a point where investors could forsee the possibility of receiving a minimal acceptable Rate of Return.

I suggest you might want to hold "some" of your "Bergeron" as your hedge against Ovechkin.

 

[craig1]

AND BERGERON? If you put a dollar on him two years ago you could retire by now. What I seem to be getting is that while Bergeron has improved rapidly he is already near his peak. I just don't agree with this. Not that this has any bearing on Ovechkinwho looks like a solid investment also.

No. You couldn't retire by now. You might have made a 150% return before taxes. After tax rate of return on Capital Gains would drop you to less than doubling your money.

I never implied in my analysis that he was near his peak. I don't know what you are reading, but that implication was never made. Will his value continue to increase at its current levels. Doubtful, since he is currently overpriced and more valuable to his current team than to another "investor." at the moment when considering value of Present Value of Future Returns compared to Present value of Assets that it would take to acquire him.

You're the one who suggested we look at this from an investments standpoint.....as you can tell from my profile, I'll gladly jump in to any conversation involving such a topic!

 

[craig1]

I suggest you might want to hold "some" of your "Bergeron" as your hedge against Ovechkin.

How in the world would that be a hedge? That would be considered diversification to an extent, but not a stright out hedge. Heck, given that they are in the same industry and sub-industry (hockey, forward) I would suggest that diversifiable risk would actually show a positive correlation and would reduce the amount of diversification, heceforth leaving you open to unwarrented risk. I'm risk averse personally, and would rather not do such a thing.

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

I do not seriously consider Bergeron to have a better future than Ovechkin. I was simply trying tio point out the sillyness in BIGTRAIN's reason to put Ovechkin over Crosby...

 

[Crosbyfan]

No. You couldn't retire by now. You might have made a 150% return before taxes. After tax rate of return on Capital Gains would drop you to less than doubling your money.

I never implied in my analysis that he was near his peak. I don't know what you are reading, but that implication was never made. Will his value continue to increase at its current levels. Doubtful, since he is currently overpriced and more valuable to his current team than to another "investor." at the moment when considering value of Present Value of Future Returns compared to Present value of Assets that it would take to acquire him.

You're the one who suggested we look at this from an investments standpoint.....as you can tell from my profile, I'll gladly jump in to any conversation involving such a topic!

150 %? from 1 assist in the Q to 39 points in the NHL this season in 2 years?

Sorry if I implied (I didn't mean to, though I was replying to your post) that the "near his peak" came from you. Others put his "upside" at 60-65 points per season which I believe he could reach next year even with the inevitable slowing down of his development that HAS to come eventually.

The "investment" analogy (as with any analogy) should not be taken so literally.

 

[Crosbyfan]

How in the world would that be a hedge? That would be considered diversification to an extent, but not a stright out hedge. Heck, given that they are in the same industry and sub-industry (hockey, forward) I would suggest that diversifiable risk would actually show a positive correlation and would reduce the amount of diversification, heceforth leaving you open to unwarrented risk. I'm risk averse personally, and would rather not do such a thing.

If you take value to be in hockey terms alone I think it works.

 

[craig1]

If you take value to be in hockey terms alone I think it works.

No.....No it doesn't.

 

[craig1]

150 %? from 1 assist in the Q to 39 points in the NHL this season in 2 years?

Sorry if I implied (I didn't mean to, though I was replying to your post) that the "near his peak" came from you. Others put his "upside" at 60-65 points per season which I believe he could reach next year even with the inevitable slowing down of his development that HAS to come eventually.

The "investment" analogy (as with any analogy) should not be taken so literally.

Yep. 150% Return. In other words, invest $100, get $250 back. 150% Return. That's about right. The kid was 45th overall in 2003. It's not like he came out of nowhere. He was obviously considered a good prospect, and followed that up with a good rookie year. I would generally equate that with his value going up about 150%. In other words, if the draft were redone today, he'd be in the 10-15 range.

 

[Crosbyfan]

No.....No it doesn't.

Do you always struggle with simple analogies or just when someone uses stocks?

 

[Crosbyfan]

Yep. 150% Return. In other words, invest $100, get $250 back. 150% Return. That's about right. The kid was 45th overall in 2003. It's not like he came out of nowhere. He was obviously considered a good prospect, and followed that up with a good rookie year. I would generally equate that with his value going up about 150%. In other words, if the draft were redone today, he'd be in the 10-15 range.

As I said "two years", from 1 Q assist to 39 NHL points. If you think thats 150% ROI fine, you can argue that, but it's just an analogy.

EDIT: If you were Boston's GM would you really trade Bergeron for 3 sixteen year old players who had played 12 Q games between them and had 3 assists all tolled? I give you more credit than that

 

[craig1]

EDIT: If you were Boston's GM would you really trade Bergeron for 3 sixteen year old players who had played 12 Q games between them and had 3 assists all tolled? I give you more credit than that

I never even Implied that I would trade him for 3 sixteen year olds. I stated that his value is high right now, and trading for him would require more asset value than he would give back in return.......AKA....negative long-run return.

 

[craig1]

As I said "two years", from 1 Q assist to 39 NHL points. If you think thats 150% ROI fine, you can argue that, but it's just an analogy.

EDIT: If you were Boston's GM would you really trade Bergeron for 3 sixteen year old players who had played 12 Q games between them and had 3 assists all tolled? I give you more credit than that

From Internet Hockey Database.com
Season....Team.......................Lge...GP G A Pts
2001-02 Acadie-Bathurst Titan QMJHL 4 0 1 1

He played in 4 games. 4 games. You make it sound like he had 1 pt in an entire season. Therefore your analogy is totally off-base.

 

[craig1]

Do you always struggle with simple analogies or just when someone uses stocks?

You brought up the analogy. I'm just showing you how totally off-base it was. If you really want me to have some fun, lets change it from stocks to Coprorate Finance. Stocks are just something I know tons about from both my scolastic and professional analytic career.

 

[Crosbyfan]

He played in 4 games. 4 games. You make it sound like he had 1 pt in an entire season. Therefore your analogy is totally off-base.

Yes 4 games as I pointed out. He also played Midget that year. The Midget league was not comparable to the RSL or NHL. Very few Midget leagues are, at least in this Quadrant of the Universe.

 

[Crosbyfan]

I never even Implied that I would trade him for 3 sixteen year olds. I stated that his value is high right now, and trading for him would require more asset value than he would give back in return.......AKA....negative long-run return.

You said his value went up by 150% in the timeframe I came up with, two years, and that he was now overvalued.

Two years ago he was 16 and had 1 assist in 4 games in the highest level of hockey (the Q) that he had played in up to that time.

Three 16 year old prospects that have played a total of 12 games and registered 3 assists in total would give you three times your initial investment.

That would be a 200% return.

Do I need to spell this out further or can you reach for your Corporate Finance texts?

 

[craig1]

You said his value went up by 150% in the timeframe I came up with, two years, and that he was now overvalued.

Two years ago he was 16 and had 1 assist in 4 games in the highest level of hockey (the Q) that he had played in up to that time.

Three 16 year old prospects that have played a total of 12 games and registered 3 assists in total would give you three times your initial investment.

That would be a 200% return.

HUH... ...MY WHOLE POINT, WHICH YOU DON"T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND, IS THAT YOU ARE COMPARING A FULL SEASONS WORTH OF STATS TO 4 GAMES WORTH OF STATS.

That is one of the most unfair and non-objective comparisons possible. There are 4 game stretches where the likes of Lemieux, Gretzky, Jagr, Sakic, etc have only had 1 point. There are also stretches where "Fill in no name fringe NHL'er" had 5 or 6 points in 4 games. You cannot base any projections on 4 games, therefore the "statistical data" is worthless and must be thrown aside.

Do I need to spell this out further or can you reach for your Corporate Finance texts?

Look here buddy, if I wasn't as informed and knowledgeable on the subject as I was, I might actually care about your shots at me....even as unfounded and rediculous as you sound. But personally, your comments have no effect on me. I've acheived more in my life by the age of 28 going on 29 than most do in their entire life. I have the ability to retire in 3 or 4 years if I choose to do so. If you want this to turn into an "I'm smarter than you debate," I'm out, because I have nothing to prove.

You started an anology in which you were totally off base and completely wrong. If you cannot handle someone showing you this, then you should stick with topics that you are prepared to defend. If you are unwilling to defend your topics with factual....and "Useful" information......and in turn try to attack others accomplishments to make yourself "feel good," then don't bother. No one really cares about your attacks, and even moreso, no one here really cares about your "feelings."

 

[Crosbyfan]

HUH... ...MY WHOLE POINT, WHICH YOU DON"T SEEM TO UNDERSTAND, IS THAT YOU ARE COMPARING A FULL SEASONS WORTH OF STATS TO 4 GAMES WORTH OF STATS.

That is one of the most unfair and non-objective comparisons possible. There are 4 game stretches where the likes of Lemieux, Gretzky, Jagr, Sakic, etc have only had 1 point. There are also stretches where "Fill in no name fringe NHL'er" had 5 or 6 points in 4 games. You cannot base any projections on 4 games, therefore the "statistical data" is worthless and must be thrown aside.



Look here buddy, if I wasn't as informed and knowledgeable on the subject as I was, I might actually care about your shots at me....even as unfounded and rediculous as you sound. But personally, your comments have no effect on me. I've acheived more in my life by the age of 28 going on 29 than most do in their entire life. I have the ability to retire in 3 or 4 years if I choose to do so. If you want this to turn into an "I'm smarter than you debate," I'm out, because I have nothing to prove.

You started an anology in which you were totally off base and completely wrong. If you cannot handle someone showing you this, then you should stick with topics that you are prepared to defend. If you are unwilling to defend your topics with factual....and "Useful" information......and in turn try to attack others accomplishments to make yourself "feel good," then don't bother. No one really cares about your attacks, and even moreso, no one here really cares about your "feelings."

I'm sorry.

 

[craig1]

I'm sorry.

Accepted.

 

[King of Stankonia]

I can't believe this thread is still here.

 

[craig1]

I can't believe this thread is still here.

I can't believe it's not butter!

 

[BrooklynCapsFan]

I can't believe it's not butter!

Spray