your actually right, that was analysts fawning about earnings growth, while not touch on why estimates were walked down alot this year and expectation were /are not being reached,yet were in a new investment cycle with over 100 multiple. reason = pumptards. Barron's should be ashamed of not mentioning more detail on the other side. rec overbought 100 multiple stocks
I've not seen the article, so pure speculation here. But, IMHO: Its not a question of shame vs. pride etc. emotions. Its a primal question of survival. As a well-honed (and tacitly understood) general rule of behavior, you never openly point a finger at the source of a river-stream from where your paycheck emerges! Nothing surprising! The only thing mildly surprizing is the abundance of financial-idiots who follow the herd in a momentum-frenzy tantamount to tulip-mania times here!
LOL! I remember every one of Barron's article about AMZN was bearish or bashing like mad when AMZN was below $25, $60, $91, etc; and every time it (i.e., Barron's) had a bearish piece AMZN went up. Now it (i.e., Barron) is convinced only sales matters and become bullish, blahblah.
"loses 60% in value."
Isn't that what some short does when he shorts from $180 and stays short near $230 and higher on his way to realizing a 60% loss and more? What religion is that?
If you saw a certain stock lose 60% for short periods of time (weeks or months) and gain 500% multiple times and stay near those higher levels for much longer periods of time (years) and read the failure rates of market timers the smart thing to do would be just to stay long. That religion is called just being smart.
The oppositie religion is called just being dumb, it's what you shorts practice. Shorting a stock that you claim is always manipulated against you and doesn't obey the laws of the valuation model and efficient markets in the way you think it should.
"Nope - he bought a bubble. Just like he did in 2000."
He did? Don't know his cost basis but assuming it was $70, the average price for a 12 month period leading up to that, he's tripled his money. Better than the losses you've racked up so far.
"And it will end up the same way, too."
The same way would be a $150 gain (see above) per share, vastly superior to your $50 per share loss so far on your short. It could only end up the same way (a 215% gain) if the stock price goes over $420. How is that share price anything but horrible, horrible, terrible, for someone like you who shorted from $180? Multiple margin calls?
Yes, and from what you said (that it would be like 2000) you expect the "same" thing to happen which was that someone who bought at the avg. 2000 price of 70 would have more than tripled his money. If he bought at 130 then your "same" thing equates to a price of 420.
Now, if you mean it WON'T be like 2000 then that is a whole different matter, but you have to make up your mind.