Talk:Fundamental analysis

Screening tools
I think it would be useful to create a page describing stock screeners - i.e. their purpose and use, together with a list of the more popular ones out there. Does anyone know enough about this topic to get it started? Ronnotel 12:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Financial Statement analysis
Was redirected here on or about 3 October 2006. Content was:


 * Financial statement analysis


 * For an investor it is hard to understand the financial condition without financial statement. It is composed of four parts:Balance sheet, Income statement, statement of cash flow, statement of retained earning. The report is usually presented by annual and quarter year report. Financial statements in most of the countries are checked by independent audit firms. It shows the relation between the many ratios which provides the investor the information about the last year business profile, the share holders' right and deventure, summarize the line of product and cost.


 * The important ratios for the analysis are the followings:


 * Current ratio=Current assets/Current liabilities;
 * Current assets=Cash+Bank balance+Accounts receivable+Closing stock
 * +Prepaid expenses+Notes receivable;
 * Current liabilities=Account payable+Bank overdraft+Bill payable+Creditors+Other short term liabilities;
 * Quick ratio/Acid test ratio=Quick assets/Quick liabilities;
 * Quick liabilities=Current liabilities-Bank overdraft;
 * Quick assets=Current assets- (Closing stock+Prepaid expenses);
 * Debt-equality ratio=(Current liabilities+short term debt) /equity capital;
 * Stock turn over ratio=Cost of goods sold/Average stock;
 * Average stock=(opening stock+closing stock) /2;
 * Gross profit ratio=Gross profit/Net sales * 100%;
 * Net profit ratio=Net profit/Net sales *100%;

Rich Farmbrough, 10:32 15 December 2006 (GMT).

Inclusion of Technical Analysis as Such?
I find it a bit curious that technical analysis is included in such a substantial way in the article on "fundamental analysis." Perhaps that was not the intention, but the way the article is worded, it almost appears as though technical analysis is a variety of fundamental analysis. Obviously, this is not the case. Any thoughts on improving this, so that it is more apparent that the two are very distinct from one another? Jhain301 16:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In the Procedures section 2nd sentence: Shouldn't "..considered either 'fundamental' (they are facts) or 'technical' (they are investor sentiment) " be replaced by "..considered either 'technical' (they are facts) or 'fundamental' (they are investor sentiment) " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokkaebee (talk • contribs) 10:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am also uneasy about the section on technical analysis. The description given there seems to be the opposite of what I thought TA was - as far as I am aware TA does not believe that all information is already reflected in the current share price, and if it was there would be no point in doing any TA. I suggest removing all references to TA from the article. It looks as if it has been put there by someone trying to give more credibility to TA as a valid method, or by someone who has themselves been taken in my all the hokum and snake-oil of TA. 92.28.246.170 (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding an external link
I would be interested in hearing opinions of Wikipedia users about usefulness of adding this external link to the article: iStockResearch. Using fundamental analysis, iStoskResearch provides intrinsic (or fair) value calculations to most actively-traded US and Canadian stocks. Personally, I find it very useful. The model is also highly praised by Value Investing For Dummies and by High-Powered Investing All-In-One For Dummies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.122.208.187 (talk) 06:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be there per WP:ELNO points 2, 4, 5, and 11. - MrOllie (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

'Procedures' Section Cleanup
Most of the sections seem to be relatively clear and on-topic. However, the Procedures section needs some cleanup in a few main areas:
 * 1) Some ideas seem slightly off-topic (though it could be that they just need a bit more introduction). For example, the sentence beginning "The earnings estimates and growth rate projections published widely..." does not follow very smoothly from the ones proceeding it. Perhaps a lead in could be a list of key fundamental analysts.
 * 2) The descriptions of the actual procedures are a bit unclear. It is especially unclear whether these procedures apply only to fundamental analysis. If anyone has the technical knowledge to explain it in layman's terms...
 * 3) The 'new career' mentioned is not described at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2ReinreB2 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Research and theory
I do think there is a need to give a bit of history in the article. Who are the main researchers and scientists that build the 'fundament' of the fundamental analysis? What are the main milestones in the development of FA? Klomb (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

About fairness of "fair" price
How do you think: if a stock is sold at a fair price, does it deserve to be bought? If not, then what is the fairness of this "fair" price? What's the point to calling it so?Clothclub (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)