Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Seattle,
Yes, your over aggressive positioning could be worth 30% of its current value.
That is what you are missing.
Igy
Or it could be worth 150% of its current value. No one knows. Meanwhile he’s ahead of the game.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Seattle,
Yes, your over aggressive positioning could be worth 30% of its current value.
That is what you are missing.
Igy
Or it could be worth 150% of its current value. No one knows. Meanwhile he’s ahead of the game.
Anne Elke wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Seattle,
Yes, your over aggressive positioning could be worth 30% of its current value.
That is what you are missing.
Igy
Or it could be worth 150% of its current value. No one knows. Meanwhile he’s ahead of the game.
Yes if you believe the function of a business is to not make money, or the purpose of investment is to buy stocks of the same. It is not what you believe since these things are measureable.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Anne Elke wrote:
Or it could be worth 150% of its current value. No one knows. Meanwhile he’s ahead of the game.
Yes if you believe the function of a business is to not make money, or the purpose of investment is to buy stocks of the same. It is not what you believe since these things are measureable.
Your reply is nonsensical and has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
And I came back several if you recall: August 2015, and November 2016.
I’ll be back for good next time and you will have nothing to add.
So sad.
Why don't you remind us of what happened on those dates. Also, how long it lasted.
Anne Elke wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
You obviously don’t understand what I wrote.
Yes if you believe the function of a business is to not make money, or the purpose of investment is to buy stocks of the same. It is not what you believe since these things are measureable.
Your reply is nonsensical and has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Anne Elke wrote:
Your reply is nonsensical and has nothing to do with what I wrote.
I understand that what you wrote has nothing to do with what I wrote.
= you have no understanding of what I wrote
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-23/imperial-naivete-american-publicAnne Elke wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
I understand that what you wrote has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Deflection.
You need introspection....
No.
...added to my Google position just before the market close in that earnings would be announced after hours.
Anne Elke wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Yes if you believe the function of a business is to not make money, or the purpose of investment is to buy stocks of the same. It is not what you believe since these things are measureable.
Your reply is nonsensical and has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Most of his stuff is nonsensical.
Now That's Telling It Like It Is wrote:
Anne Elke wrote:
Your reply is nonsensical and has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Most of his stuff is nonsensical.
What happens when a business is faced with the prospect that it will never make money or make very little money relative to it’s stock price?
https://wolfstreet.com/2018/07/23/desperate-tesla-asks-suppliers-for-cash-back-retroactively-to-2016/Surprisingly to many here it does and will matter.
Igy, what are you talking about? All my investments have earnings. Are you suggesting that companies which may have a temporary cash flow due to acquisitions or R&D expenses do "not make money?"
All of them have very real earnings and extremely high growth rate.
seattle prattle wrote:
Igy, what are you talking about? All my investments have earnings. Are you suggesting that companies which may have a temporary cash flow due to acquisitions or R&D expenses do "not make money?"
All of them have very real earnings and extremely high growth rate.
Seattle,
No, you are just paying a higher price for a unit of earnings. You are just convincing yourself that it is a bargain. Here is your latest purchase illustrated:
https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/pe_ratioIf you own NFLX it falls into the same category as TSLA, likely impossible for it ever to be profitable.
Igy
... and in terms of your criticism of my investments as "overly aggressive", at times i find myself agreeing.
But understand that a long time ago i read from Warren Buffett of more likey it was Peter Lynch, 'let your winners ride'. So I did, and they grew to an outsized proportion of the portfolio. And that goes for the 3x leveraged ETFs as well.
I just never got around to re-balancing. Maybe i should, and i've taken some small steps along those lines, but nothing significant, to be fair.
Seattle,
You are a decent person. I am not picking on you. I wish you well and hope you make all the money you wish. That said, I believe many investors are making very serious mistake interpreting this era as normal. I just don’t believe it.
Take for example the PE of Alphabet, 50 is not close to normal even with an elevated growth rate. Then NFLX or AMZN insanely rich stocks that can likely never grow into their current prices. None of this is just the rantings of a poster on LRC. It is market history.
Igy
The very high growth rate of Netflix and Amazon and Google are reinvesting their profits to further their growth. That's their paradigm. I know some don't feel comfortable until companies demonstrate Free Cash Flow, but that's not what these rocket stocks are about.
So, if they do crash, i have plenty of time to take profits. A lot of time.
I know another investor would cash out at this point and consider themselves very lucky.
Alphabet's (Google's) earnings were also heavily reliant on the returns from highly profitable investments. Bulls will see advantages in this but bears would want to see more from the underlying company. Anyway, their doing something right.