The VG cycle is hitting the early stages of it's sweet spot. Yeah there's overall market fear but you can't ignore the growth that these companies should enjoy over the next two to three years. It's discount shopping time in this sector.
No I stopped reading Goodking at the Naked Empire I think. I "forgot" to much of the story to keep up with the plot lines ans characters etc. I have been wanting to reread the entire series so its fresh in my mind but haven't had the time. Martin is good but haven't read his last book either. As I get older I'm more likely to wait for the entire series to be finished then read it all the way thru. Save me from going back every two years and rereading it to get it fresh in my mind.
Holy smokes! I knew you guys were smart. Wheel of time, excellent. Now, are you a true fan fantasy sci fi fan? Have you finished Confessor yet (don't tell me anything, I'm saving it for a trip I'm taking in Feb)?
Yes it does. It matters as to the probabilities of an occurrence (a given stock going up/dn and to what degree it may/may not move). The fundies being good/bad will cause a stock fall/rise "less"/"more" than it otherwise would vs. the mkt.
It matters in the long run. and I guess if a gun was to my head I would say it also matters somewhat in the shortrun too. But in the shortrun emotion is more a factor in the movement of the stock. Now of course you will say but...the emotion is caused by the underlying fundementals and that is where the gun to my head would come in.
There is merit to that but just as unseen stated irt the banking sector (the div doesn't always protect the stock). In 06' many people would have said the banks were great DIV payers with a history of DIV raises. We've all seen those stocks get cut 50-60% which doesn't really compensate for a measly 2% yld (on a much higher basis). I actually just focus on looking for what I think are good stocks and if they pay a dividend "all the better". That's just me.
True in some sense but if you did a history of the banks you would see that the div is not safe. Banks are known for cutting their div. Other companies are less likely to cut their div some companies have a solid history of never cutting their div. True that does not mean they won't but the "odds" are more in your favor that they will keep it unless things are at their worse. And hopefully you are out of that stock long before that has to occur because you are following the earnings and CC's right?
IT's only remote if there isn't a master plan for the universe with luck thrown in to make things interesting. for more indepth views on this I would suggest some Fantasy fiction. Robert Jordan was the best author in the genre. The Wheel of Time makes you think. The man was a master story teller.
In fact for Traders and "investors" I would suggest reading any fiction as one way to help in the stock market. The Bard IMO is one of the greats when it comes to explaining the human emotion.
Short reply ;-)
"I do not think all of life is a gamble or that no matter what I do fate is going to decide my path"
--> This isn't a reply to anyone in particular because I can't resist a little controversy. I've seen many different thoughts on this and people are often very passionate irt their opinion. It has to do with a few things that were brought up in this thread (fate/luck & marriage).
I'm not a big believer in pure fate either. Along those lines I don't believe that anyone find their "perfect spouse/significant other". Ok, there's probably 1 or 2 but honestly I even think that could be stretching it. Some people believe in "the one" but the chance is so impossibly remote that it seems completely unrealistic. Yes, it's terribly (un)romantic but it's true. "IMO" ;-)...
A few more:
"Does it matter where you invested at? No. does it matter what it's sales are? no does it matter what it's book value is? no"
--> Yes it does. It matters as to the probabilities of an occurrence (a given stock going up/dn and to what degree it may/may not move). The fundies being good/bad will cause a stock fall/rise "less"/"more" than it otherwise would vs. the mkt.
"poker will ALWAYS be determined by the luck of the draw."
--> Actually, luck is only 50% (probably lwr than that) of the equation. Knowing "when" to hold em/fold em is a lot more than luck. For the best players it includes memorizing all the odds as it pertains to the players "outs". They also use specific strategy as to being pot committed & what the anti is when deciding the size of their bets/raises. Then there is the whole "reading the opponent" aspect that gives a skilled player the advantage. In the short run (any hand) anything can happen but in the long run (the match itself) the skilled player has an extreme advantage. This is why "any" casual poker player would want to avoid playing someone like Doyle Brunson, Johnny Chan, or Phil Hellmuth. The same can be said for Blackjack. Even a game like Backgammon will be won by an experienced player more often than not.
"That's why at the World Series of Poker the "best" players don't always or rarely win."
--> They may not always win but they make it to the point where they make money in the tournament more often than not and much more often than amateurs. All-in-all it's very similar to an investor who knows nothing (or very little) about the stocks (and mkt as a whole) VS. someone who understands:
--Mkt psychology- equivalent of reading your poker opponent
--Earnings reports/fundamentals/basic charting- equivalent of calculating/understanding the poker probabilities.
--Sizing you market trades (buy/sell)- equivalent of sizing your poker bets/raises.
"I'm also not trying to convince you of anything, just having/enjoying the discussion."
--> Me too (well, maybe trying "a little"...)
"Unseen's suggestion that a true investment provides an immediate use is in complete oppositon to the standard definition which is to advance capital with the intent of making gains over time. Buying food, cars, and energy to heat your house are quite the opposite of investment. Those are expenditures."
--> It's not in direct opposition to that definition. Just because you can use something doesn't mean you wouldn't like/expect it to go up as with a house. He said it's an investment because it continues to have another use that gives it an intrinsic value even "if" nobody will buy it from you yrs later (i.e. a roof over your head, something you can drive, etc). This is different than "food/energy" which are "one time uses" (i.e. consumables), not to mention that they go bad over time.
"A good IRA/ 401k has a mixuture of all these things. Also in the IRA you should concentrate on DIViDEND paying stocks...These stocks have an underlying vaule. the companies also have a history of increasing the div... if a div paying stock goes down in value the div still produces income"
--> There is merit to that but just as unseen stated irt the banking sector (the div doesn't always protect the stock). In 06' many people would have said the banks were great DIV payers with a history of DIV raises. We've all seen those stocks get cut 50-60% which doesn't really compensate for a measly 2% yld (on a much higher basis). I actually just focus on looking for what I think are good stocks and if they pay a dividend "all the better". That's just me.
Not true because staying in a bad relationship that should've been left yrs earlier usually leaves long lasting scars on children as well as the spouse on the receiving end.
I wasn't talking about an abusive reltionship but one of a lazy no good for nothing bum kind of one.
This is a reply to a few previous posts all at once(to save space):
"It is the same thing. The word investing is used by wall street because the word gambling carries so many negative emotions...every annual report states upfront that the market carries risk/ that you can lose everything."
--> Exactly. Most people won't accept this because it scares them and they wouldn't "invest/gamble" their money in the mkt if it wasn't called "investing".
Additionally--> It's called the stock "market" and just as in any other mkt, things are worth "what someone will give/trade you for it". In the stock mkt, you trade currency for "ownership" in something. At the Grocery mkt you trade something (typically currency in developed worlds but can be anything in other regions). Saying that banks are "the safe" investment isn't even really true because there have been times in history that currency has become so worthless that it would take a bucket of that currency to buy bread. If you wanted to buy something and the person said: "I don't accept dollars" it doesn't matter how many of them you have and then it's worth is on par with Monopoly money. NO, I'm NOT predicting that!
"It is the gambler that leaves a company at the first sign of trouble and an investor that holds on to the company as it sinks to $0 doubling down all the way because they can not understand how their "investment" could be worthless...A gambler weighs the risks/rewards constantly and is able to sell into strength and buy into fear when the risk/reward changes."
--> So true. IRT weighing the risk/reward it goes back to poker in that the skilled player is always doing that although in Poker it's usually referred to as probability analysis. A skilled Poker player uses probability analysis to determine how many "outs" exist as well as "what their opponent will do" based on observed behavior (like reading charts). Does that not also sound similar to using p/e, peg, p/b, p/s, or even a country's viability irt "investing" in it's currency?
"Investment carries expectations that will not allow you to leave a sinking ship, nor enjoy a massive profit because you expect the good times to continue, you expect the company to repair itself, you expect the CEO to not lie to you. You expect to make money in the long term. When expectations are not met at first there is confusion, then anger, then dispair, then you accept and move on but by that time large parts of you capital is lost."
--> Unfortunately, yes. The buy high sell low phenomena...
"another point. since you are invested in your marriage you are more than likely to work through the bad times, to invest additional time, energy for the greater good of the relationship. If you gambled on your husband and he turned out to be a no good for nothing SOB. You would leave quickly and look for greener pastures. But since you invested in him, you will overlook the faults and will only accept that he is a no good for nothing SOB when all other options are tried."
--> Great analogy.
"While this is great for marriage and for the children of the marriage. It is deadly in the stock market."
--> Not true because staying in a bad relationship that should've been left yrs earlier usually leaves long lasting scars on children as well as the spouse on the receiving end.
"A stock is not a home and will not provide shelter for you in rough weather."
--> Yep, just like a car: you can drive it regardless of if it's a new 50K car or that same car 10 or 20 yrs later that's only worth $25K/$10K respectfully but still drivable.