Welcome @McLovin

There's a thread here in which some software and subs are discussed.

Personally, I usually just download the financials from the ASX website. It can be a hassle inputing data manually, but you know it's correct.

I sometimes use CapIQ but you have to be careful that the data is accurate.

Hi @McLovin, for the companies I follow closely, I also put the numbers in manually from the ASX reports. Even though it takes a few minutes, it means I really digest the details of what’s going on across the P&L, Balance Sheet and Cash Flows. I’m data-driven and so for me it’s not wasted manual labour but valuable study!

For quick scanning I use both paid MarketScreener.com (because it shows evolution over time of analyst consensus average, min and max numbers) and free TradingView.com (I like the historical p/e charts). For companies I am screening as opposed to modelling, they’re provide good summary numbers, including valuation multiples. Of the two, I probably use MarketScreener.com 80% of the time.

I used to use Cap IQ but Tikr does 99% of what I want and the data isn't really of a quality that justifies the price of Cap IQ. I have to chop and change most data anyway so going directly to the source (company's own financial statements) is what happens. I can't imagine anyone really needing much more than what Tikr provides to get an overview. The reality is that the best opportunities require manual work. And I can't remember the last time I discovered something through using stock screeners etc. It's more important to build a big funnel of potential ideas through things like this forum and then learn how to sort the wheat from the chaff.

It feels like if ASIC or the ASX pulled their finger out and just required companies to lodge electronic versions out of SAP or whatever they use and then let people access the data through a database query and download it. Sadly, the ASX struggled to upgrade its website so I'm not holding out much hope.

I agree with some other posters that nothing beats the ASX announcements and manually transcribing figures from company announcements. It's definitely not wasted time in my view. I do use other platforms for different purposes but the only one I pay for is TIKR, chiefly for transcripts but it does all the metrics/consensus targets etc.

The one gap I have is none of the platforms I use show historical shares on issue (or else I'm having a 'boy look'). As someone who appreciates companies who go to lengths not to dilute, it's something I'd be keen to see. What do people use to track this?

I think your only chance is to track back through the annual reports - helpfully the equity note should show you what's been issued over this year and a comparative for prior year, so if you pick up each second year, you can get the info pretty quickly.

Good example below from Johns Lyng's 2023 annual report:

Tikr has SoI in the income statement.

Commsec shows UP TO NINE years of SoI (Shares on Issue) under the "Financials" tab for each company:

Only 6 years for JLG because that's how long they've been listed. Below is CSL, with 9 years of SoI and other data, and the graphs at the top (Earnings and RoE) go out to 10 years.

MarketScreener.Com shows SOI last 5 years,… but your view is 4 years at a time.

One of several finances screens shown below. SOI 3rd line from bottom.

ooh, i like this @CanadianAussie

If I get to keep playing -- It shouldn't make any difference, right? The expected value is the same.

If I only get to play one, I'd definitely go for game 1 as I'd be guaranteed of winning something. Indeed, I have a 2/3 chance of doing better than playing game 2 just once.

Having said all of that, my gut tells me there's some very non-intuitive answer here..

Only 1 game - Game 1.

Question 1, it doesn't matter unless you are seeking a specific outcome like "I want to end up 300 ahead." In which case, I think ?you'd be better to play game 2.

@Strawman Yes, according to the author if you get to keep playing it shouldn't make a difference as the expected outcomes are identical.

I like your thought process for only playing once as you seem to have thought about it more deeply than the author. He states game one as well but because there is less variance.

It gets more interesting to me when the average outcome on game 2 is actually something like 121-130. It's the scenario we're offered in investing really - high risk companies might have a much higher than average EV, but the variance can also be huge! Quite interesting thinking about that with regards to portfolio allocation too and in the value of money returns to you.

For an extreme example, earning $50k in investments is more valuable to most people than a 51% chance of earning $100k.

I've only given this a few minutes thought, however, I think there is no "right answer". I think it is a great illustration of risk appetite.

How willing are you to lose everything for a 1/3rd chance at the 100 payoff, versus, is a gain or loss of 10 even worth showing up for?

This subtext underlies a lot of our discussion on SM.

If you’re leaving your money invested with these potential returns, you have to choose game 1 because game 2 will soon take you to 0. “Double or nothing” doesn’t keep you in the game very long.

But, @Strawman, given your love of the lottery, I thought if you only played once you’d throw your spare change at game 2??

Ah, I think I read it differently in that the 0 outcome meant you didn't win anything, not that you lost everything. IE if I played Game 2 I either got nothing, $20 or $100.

I don’t get it. Do we play the games for free or else?

@CanadianAussie good game, Actually its a bit liek the Howard marks spread diagram in my preso, my 2c is that in the real world of investing getting those percentages vaguely correct is quite difficult and in a group decision, even more difficult. in other words, imo, as the variance expands i think the ability to accurately get the probabilities correct is just too hard. it moves from investing to speculating. therefore i want to take investing risk where the ability to accurately forecast is greater, imo. these theoretical games are too clean, but I want a tight variance, the tighter the better. i of course have stuffed that up as well.

as an aside, this proposition highlights why an investment team on the same wavelength is critical. if their assessment of the variability of outcomes is too inconsistent they will blow up. haha I've seen it too often.

hope the reasoning is not too contorted