Liberal Forum

walkingstick » 20 Dec 2023, 6:29 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Dec 2023, 6:29 pm

stocks in the dow will buy out all competition. thus increasing the value of the dow. with no competition, the members of dow will triple prices. i just made an error. dow will go to 300,000. or more. then, like the monopoly game, one company will own every thing. your shelter. your shoes. your food. everything. come to think of it. it sounds like today for the homeless.

We see those record dow closings. Are you Elon musk. 

R.Suave » 27 Dec 2023, 2:55 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2023, 2:55 pm

They HAVE to do so to remain "equal weighted"....but it's not "top performers" it's a static roster with occasional substitutions.

Of course.  I used QQQ as an example.  There are thousands of NASDQ ETF's and managed funds out there. I simply didn't want to search through them to find one with a model closer to what I proposed.  I figured you would understand my point.
 

LowIQTrash » 27 Dec 2023, 7:40 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2023, 7:40 pm

The reason he’s able to buy that many shares of Apple in the first place is due to his private deals.

As for your examples, IIRC he made a private deal with the OXY investors and bought a large stake at below market price (kind of like what he did in 2017 or whatever - he got a 25% discount to market value on BoA shares). 

Trying to mimic the Oracle is like…slapping together a roughshod phone, painting it with Apple’s logos and brand colors, and then wondering why you don’t have a company with a trillion dollar market cap.

Actually, mimicking the Oracle is easy - Just buy Berkshire A.....or even the B shares.  But, beyond that, he's a pretty long term investor.  You can easily look at Berkshire's top public holdings and mimic that. I'd agree if Warren was in and out of lots of stocks on a daily basis, but he isn't.
 

LowIQTrash » 27 Dec 2023, 7:48 pm » wrote: ↑

27 Dec 2023, 7:48 pm

Imagine saying this in 2000 and then buying Microsoft stock instead of bonds…you’d be underwater for 13 years. And that’s assuming you didn’t sell and take the loss like 98% of people would 

Recency bias at its finest

During the "New Normal"?  Do you recall what MSFT's P/E was at that time?  Probably some sky-high number where no prudent experienced investor would have touched it with a 10-foot pole.   Gamblers and stupid people buy sky-high P/E and high Debt-Ratio stocks.  The numbers tell a story - both about a company, and about the people who invest in that company.
 

Skans » 28 Dec 2023, 10:03 am » wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2023, 10:03 am

During the "New Normal"?  Do you recall what MSFT's P/E was at that time?  Probably some sky-high number where no prudent experienced investor would have touched it with a 10-foot pole.   Gamblers and stupid people buy sky-high P/E and high Debt-Ratio stocks.  The numbers tell a story - both about a company, and about the people who invest in that company.

You missed my point.

My point is that valuations can stay depressed for a very long time (10+ yrs), which invalidates your argument that bonds are more “rigged.” 

Bonds were obviously not the right option given the stock and Bitcoin run up over the past 15 years, but you can’t say that will be the case for the next 10 yrs.

Personally I prefer technical investing more.

When I first bought stocks, I picked names like Visa, MasterCard, and Lam Research. My reasoning was “these stock prices keep going up lulz” and I had great results. 

(This was before learning about MACD, SMA, death crosses, whatever)

Then I read Graham/Buffett and started picking stocks that seemed undervalued and results went to ****. VALUE stocks have consistently underperformed since 2009.

So I think I’ll stick with charts, even if people liken it to witchcraft / astrology. The market is not rational so neither should you be.

 
 

LowIQTrash » 28 Dec 2023, 4:47 pm » wrote: ↑

28 Dec 2023, 4:47 pm

You missed my point.

My point is that valuations can stay depressed for a very long time (10+ yrs), which invalidates your argument that bonds are more “rigged.” 

Bonds were obviously not the right option given the stock and Bitcoin run up over the past 15 years, but you can’t say that will be the case for the next 10 yrs.

Personally I prefer technical investing more.

When I first bought stocks, I picked names like Visa, MasterCard, and Lam Research. My reasoning was “these stock prices keep going up lulz” and I had great results. 

(This was before learning about MACD, SMA, death crosses, whatever)

Then I read Graham/Buffett and started picking stocks that seemed undervalued and results went to ****. VALUE stocks have consistently underperformed since 2009.

So I think I’ll stick with charts, even if people liken it to witchcraft / astrology. The market is not rational so neither should you be.

Stocks that are "undervalued" have lost value for a reason.  But, there are blue-chip stocks that become good values for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with falling earnings. You've got to like the company, like what it does and how it performs.  Then, look for buying opportunities.  If you have a list of 20 stocks you really like based on what the company does and its stats, there's a good chance that in any given month, the numbers on one of them would be right to purchase. You are using the term "VALUE" in the investor-traditional sense of the word.  IMHO, that kind of "value" is code for "beat-down-company because it F-ed up".  Like Disney, for example.