I have to admit that I am not very convinced by the articles on Marketwatch. I do normally read WSJ and I like the scientific / fact based background of your frequent writing, so I wanted to give it a try given that the newspaper is from the same publisher and that you had written articles for them.
However, my expectation was absolutely not met, this article has the quality of an average clickbait. This seems to be the case for most articles on Marketwatch.
Short intro story, seemingly random stock picks from an industry without any explanation as to why these particular stocks would be benefitial or which measures have been applied to identify the same. No background research, no numerical backing, and most importantly, no additional value worth my time.
PWR was a great pick 2-3 years ago but appears to be quite overbought nowadays from my perspective. A lot of growth is already priced in.
They have a more or less stable margin around 3,5 % on net income. Yes, they have tripled their revenue in the last 10 years.
Assuming they would triple their business again in the next 10 years (can they though?) their lofty 50 p/e would shrink down to a more reasonable 17 p/e, without any share price increase. Other metrics such as TEV/Revenue, book value, FCF yield don't look much like value.
Well, that is the nature of Marketwatch and the style they go for. I simply don't have the space for thorough research in these articles. Rather I can only tell a story. But rest assured that at least when it comes to my articles, I will only write about companies that have popped up in my research as attractive.
Having said that, I admit I am a strategist, not an equity analyst. I look at stocks from a top down perspective and that has served my quite well in managing money in the past. At least it worked better than the usual bottom up fundamental analysis, but that is just my view.
Gut gemacht!
oh yeah!
PWR has been one of my favorite picks of the past 18 months. Your splendid article confirms the reason why.
I have to admit that I am not very convinced by the articles on Marketwatch. I do normally read WSJ and I like the scientific / fact based background of your frequent writing, so I wanted to give it a try given that the newspaper is from the same publisher and that you had written articles for them.
However, my expectation was absolutely not met, this article has the quality of an average clickbait. This seems to be the case for most articles on Marketwatch.
Short intro story, seemingly random stock picks from an industry without any explanation as to why these particular stocks would be benefitial or which measures have been applied to identify the same. No background research, no numerical backing, and most importantly, no additional value worth my time.
PWR was a great pick 2-3 years ago but appears to be quite overbought nowadays from my perspective. A lot of growth is already priced in.
They have a more or less stable margin around 3,5 % on net income. Yes, they have tripled their revenue in the last 10 years.
Assuming they would triple their business again in the next 10 years (can they though?) their lofty 50 p/e would shrink down to a more reasonable 17 p/e, without any share price increase. Other metrics such as TEV/Revenue, book value, FCF yield don't look much like value.
But only time will tell.
Well, that is the nature of Marketwatch and the style they go for. I simply don't have the space for thorough research in these articles. Rather I can only tell a story. But rest assured that at least when it comes to my articles, I will only write about companies that have popped up in my research as attractive.
Having said that, I admit I am a strategist, not an equity analyst. I look at stocks from a top down perspective and that has served my quite well in managing money in the past. At least it worked better than the usual bottom up fundamental analysis, but that is just my view.