ron banged schreef:
[quote=maxen]
[quote=ron banged]
[quote=maxen]
[quote=ron banged]
[quote=maxen]
...
So, since I missed your Crucell/AEX comparisons (again!) for the last couple of days when Crucell pps was going up, I figured you may need some help.
I thought it easier to exclude day-to-day fluctuations, and look at Crucell and AEX performance for the last weeks (roughly the period when you were (claiming) keeping track):
1 - day Crucell +3.1% AEX -1.9% Crucell outperforms AEX with 5.0%
1-week Crucell +5.7% AEX -3.1% Crucell outperforms AEX with 8.8%
2-week Crucell +1.2% AEX -6.4% Crucell outperforms AEX with 7.6%
3-week Crucell +0.0% AEX -7.7% Crucell outperforms AEX with 7.7%
4-week Crucell -2.3% AEX -4.5% Crucell outperforms AEX with 2.2%
For good measure, since I’m more interested in long-term comparisons, here's a bonus:
½ year Crucell -5.0% AEX +19.1% Crucell underperforms AEX with 24.1%
1 year Crucell +38.8% AEX +7.5% Crucell outperforms AEX with 31.3%
5 year Crucell +75.1% AEX -10.7% Crucell outperforms AEX with 85.8%
9 year Crucell -4.8% AEX -56.5% Crucell outperforms AEX with 51.7%
...
your humble assistant,
Maxen.
[/quote]
And besides...do you even know how to do a comparison chart...those figures aren't anywhere near correct for the 1 week, 2 week, 3 week and 4 week comparison. Please, go to chart school before you blather again.
Best
T
[/quote]
See attached for the numbers used in the comparison, originally posted on 11/05/09 10.34am.
Please point out what is incorrect. If you cannot, that would leave you, Ron Blather, as the mother-of-all-blatherers....
Greetings,
M
[/quote]
aex on october 8 314
today 314
flat
Crucell october 8 14.77 euro
today 13.94
down 5%
[/quote]
This is correct, which proves that you can do it too. One doesn't need a chart, as you implied, just 2 pps values, 1 now and 1 in the past. You just calculated a 33-day (or 4.7 week) performance difference between Crucell and AEX, from october 8 to november 10, resulting in Crucell underperforming AEX with ~ 5%.
If you would actually look at the data I provided, you would see I did exactly the same, with pps data from november 5 compared to pps data exactly 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks and 4 weeks back. How difficult can that be?
[quote=Ron]
according to the note you posted, Crucell has outperformed the AEX every week for the last month!
What kind of stupidity is that!
[/quote]
That is not what it says, as you could now. Crucell has outperformed the AEX for a 1wk, 2wk, 3wk and 4wk-period ending on november 5. That is not the same. While Crucell is outperforming the AEX for a 4-week period, it is perfectly possible that Crucell is underperforming the AEX for a week within that 3-week span. Not so difficult Ron!
[quote=Ron]
I don't know what numbers you are pulling out,
[/quote]
You could easily know, because I posted the used numbers in the attachment, Ron. READ them! Check them! If you feel inclined, you may even acknowledge they are correct!
[quote=Ron]
but please, pull up a chart and compare the AEX versus Crucell over the past three months. Crucell has consistently underperformed
[/quote]
I am sure Crucell has underperformed for this 3-month period. I already posted that Crucell underperformed for a 1/2 year period ending november 11 (with 24%). You are right that Crucell underperformed AEX for a 33-day period ending november 10.
But the discussion was that you questioned my data giving that Crucell outperformed AEX for a 1-week, 2-week, 3-week and 4-week period ending november 5, when I performed the comparision. It would be nice if your acknowledge that these numbers are actually correct.
However, my suspicion is that you suffer from the rare disease Negativitis Selectivus Crucellus, which is a medical condition that only allows you to see negative developments around Crucell. In any given timespan, it allows you to determine the periods with negative performances of Crucell compared to AEX in microseconds. For periods in which Crucell outperforms the AEX, you can STILL focus on the negative pps development of Crucell independent of the AEX, even though the AEX has performed much worse for that period (e.g., for the period since Crucell inception).
Periods in which Crucell outperformes, like most periods between 1 and 9 year to now, are simply neglected by the Negativitis Selectivus Crucellus sufferer.
It is a chronic disease. Short-term remedies are fast pps appreciations of more than 30-60%, but if the pps stabilises after that or even falls back some, the symptoms come back again.
The best long-term solution would be to cut any ties with the share in question, and focus on boring dividend stocks, when N.S.C. patients are generally happy comparing their dividend stocks with non-dividend paying Crucell or other stocks.
[/quote]
THIS IS FOR MAXEN, WHO DOESN'T UNDERSTAND MATH
Okay, let's play your game
And I'll take it slow so you can understand.
Let's just take the 4 week period YOU PICKED ending Nov 5, working backward 4 weeks, Maxen...that is 4 times 7 or 28 days, we come to October 8.
closing price for the AEX on Nov 5 was 307.83
the closing price on October 8 was 314.76
DO YOU ARGUE WITH THESE NUMBERS? NO, THEN LET'S CALCULATE.
the AEX was down (314.76- 307.83)/314.76 = -2.20%
Crucell's closing price on Nov 5 was 14.18 euro
the closing price on October 8 was 14.77
DO YOU ARGUE WITH THESE NUMBERS? NO, THEN LET'S CALCULATE
Crucell was down (14.77-14.18)/14.77 =-4.00%
AEX down 2.2%, Crucell down 4%, or put another way
Crucell UNDERPERFORMED THE AEX by 1.8%
You said...and I quote
"4-week Crucell -2.3% AEX -4.5% Crucell outperforms AEX with 2.2%"
CAN NO ONE IN THE NETHERLANDS DO MATH...DOES THIS EXPLAIN KRUIMER AND BRUS?
Does a 2 year old run your numbers? Can you actually use a calculator. No wonder you think Crucell is doing well. You can't add, subtract, multiply or divide. Numbers confuse you.
ACTUALLY RUN THE NUMBERS, FIGURE OUT WHERE YOU MADE YOUR MISTAKE,AND THEN APOLOGIZE FOR BEING A POMPOUS FOOL. YOU SUFFER FROM A DISEASE TOO...CANNOTDOMATHICUS