|
Cheesemaster200 posted:You know I have been following this thread since before the 2008 crash and in that time there has always been someone saying how they are sitting in cash or just sold all his positions because the government is "kicking the can" on something, the impending financial apocalypse is around the corner, Ron Paul 2012, etc. etc. I am an not an investor...I am a trader, speculator however you like to call it. I have been doing this for years and is the best way I can survive in the market. Lazy Broker fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Oct 24, 2013 |
#
?
Oct 23, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
Sanky Panky posted:I am an not an investor...I am a trader, speculator however you like to call it. That's fine and good, but it doesn't make your strategy any more valid. There are people with even dumber ideas than you making even more money. Best not to be results-oriented when you're attempting to analyze your own strategy. Past returns are not a predictor of future returns, etc Also TA is complete bullshit and it blows my mind that people actually buy that stuff. It's like Zero Hedge, basically a demonstration on how you can cherry pick data to prove any point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
Sanky Panky posted:I am an not an investor...I am a trader, speculator however you like to call it. Define "survive the market". Are you beating the S&P? Are you beating the S&P continually over the last five year?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:00
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:That's fine and good, but it doesn't make your strategy any more valid. There are people with even dumber ideas than you making even more money. Best not to be results-oriented when you're attempting to analyze your own strategy. Past returns are not a predictor of future returns, etc I completely disagree with you saying that TA is complete bullshit. I think that both TA and FA are equally important. If you base your decision in only one of them you are completely hosed. Zero Hedge is complete garbage Cheesemaster200 posted:Define "survive the market". 4/5 Lazy Broker fucked around with this message at 02:16 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
But... a companies fundamentals don't guarantee that a stock will perform well either. Just because a company has performed well in the past doesn't mean that it will perform well in the future, and even if it does, it is the markets demand for that stock that drives it up anyway, not its current book value or earnings or whatever. Really, TA and FA are just two sides of the same coin. With FA, you're studying the underlying asset and buying or selling based on the underlyings perceived ability to continue to perform. With TA, you're studying what the market thinks and buying or selling based on the fact that the market is ultimately traded by people, and people are predictable (or at least, large masses of them are), and follow patterns and trends. If you think TA is hokey bullshit and FA is the one true path, you're just as deluded as people that think the opposite. At the end of the day, all you're doing is coming up with reasons to convince yourself that the buy or sell you made was the right one. But since (as is so often stated in this thread) past results are not a predicator of future returns, no method of stock picking can be objectively better than the next. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you want to invest, pick 2-4 ETFs that aggregate hundreds of companies, and hold them for the long term. But this is the stock trading thread, so forgive me if I think the FA vs. TA debate is tired and laughable at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:07
|
|
|
Sokrateez posted:But... a companies fundamentals don't guarantee that a stock will perform well either. They establish whether or not it pays a sustainable dividend, though!
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:11
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:They establish whether or not it pays a sustainable dividend, though!
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
Sokrateez posted:If you think TA is hokey bullshit and FA is the one true path, you're just as deluded as people that think the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
quote:With FA, you're studying the underlying asset and buying or selling based on the underlyings perceived ability to continue to perform. With TA, you're studying what the market thinks If I study a company's business model, market dynamics and operating cash flow then I can make a pretty objective and reasonable picture of how that company will continue to function in the near future. You are making an independent analysis of the firm outside of any other influences. quote:From my perspective, the purpose for TA isn't to predict the future but to tell me where the market/equity/underlying is at this moment when entering a trade and to define risk(stop) as well. Cheesemaster200 fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
Sokrateez posted:But since (as is so often stated in this thread) past results are not a predicator of future returns, no method of stock picking can be objectively better than the next. Ding ding ding
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 03:17
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:What do you mean by "where the asset is". Whether it is undervalued, overvalued, popular, not popular?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 03:57
|
|
|
I'm curious to the everyone's ideas on where things are heading on a macro level. I hate making calls, but over the last few weeks i've started to become more and more convinced that we're heading towards a bear market, or at least a prolonged pullback. I haven't gone to cash or anything because i'm not at all confident about timing but the mix of corporate earnings, low interest rates, uncertainly in China, etc has me very cautious. Anyone else feeling something similar?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:If I study a company's business model, market dynamics and operating cash flow then I can make a pretty objective and reasonable picture of how that company will continue to function in the near future. You are making an independent analysis of the firm outside of any other influences. There are a thousand firms whose 'near future' stock price has had jack poo poo to do with its profitability or growth prospects, and ignoring TA is as ridiculous as ignoring FA. Support and resistance levels in many ways become a self-fulfilling prophecy since everyone is using the past to parse the future to some degree or another, and since no fundamental information is released as frequently as price action there is really no other data for traders to go on that explains short term variation as accurately. If one thinks that a momentum stock like TSLA (which in the past year has been trading almost solely on momentum, sentiment, and the hope of a good ER) breaking clean through the 20d ema and closing under the 50 day is a good reason to go long now based on future fundamentals then hats off to you.  quote:Define "survive the market". Hedge/mutual fund managers and other actual investors concern themselves with beating indices. Most accomplished day traders value assuring profit through position sizing and smart risk management above all else. They coincidentally happen to "beat the market" over a long enough time horizon, but inevitably this strategy can lead to underperformance during bull markets when buy and holders continue riding corrections to all time highs while traders get stopped out. The flipside of this is that traders aren't eating a 34% loss when SPY plunges 35% through major support into multiyear lows, and then calling that a win because technically speaking they did outperform the index. Leviathan fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 04:59
|
|
|
Sokrateez posted:But since (as is so often stated in this thread) past results are not a predicator of future returns, no method of stock picking can be objectively better than the next. a lovely poster posted:Ding ding ding Regardless, this statement has to do with security selection, not with companies' performance. Past results *are* predictors of future returns for companies, it's just common sense. If McDonalds made X billion last year, this is a (not perfect) predictor of their future returns as an organization. This is the reason bonds have ratings, because past performance of companies (and their present state) is a predictor of the liklihood they will default. It is not just a random coin flip. In other words, past results are a predictor of the stability of future interest and dividend payments. Past financial statements are also a predictor of future financial statements (margins, profits, etc.) FA has nothing to do with predicting future equity prices but has to do with understanding if equities are *currently* mispriced. It makes no claim about if the market will ever fairly price things. But it is a smart idea to buy something that appears to be mispriced, particularly if the nature of your investment can rely upon a dividend or income stream as a hedge against the market taking forever to realize the fair price.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
Leviathan posted:Hedge/mutual fund managers and other actual investors concern themselves with beating indices. Most accomplished day traders value assuring profit through position sizing and smart risk management above all else. They coincidentally happen to "beat the market" over a long enough time horizon, but inevitably this strategy can lead to underperformance during bull markets when buy and holders continue riding corrections to all time highs while traders get stopped out. The flipside of this is that traders aren't eating a 34% loss when SPY plunges 35% through major support into multiyear lows, and then calling that a win because technically speaking they did outperform the index. edit: Also with regard to understanding market sentiment via TA, I would happily take a basic sector-local and market cap-local percentile measure of EV/EBIT over some mystical momentum signal any day to gauge relative sentiment. Tell me what stocks the market is pricing as garbage and the creme de la creme, and let me decide if I disagree with any of those conclusions. Makes for a much easier, more objective way to try to grok market sentiment about individual firms than how fast the day traders are hallucinating about double edged hammer rising flag death omens or whatever the gently caress. nebby fucked around with this message at 06:08 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
So I have been very happy after buying GIMO at the IPO, and then had a bad day yesterday because they are doing another stock offering. I looked it up on Investopedia and the reason for the drop is that the value of the shares already sold will be diluted with another offering and that makes sense mathematically. However, it really dicks over the investors that bought at the IPO and stuck it out doesn't it? Seems kinda lovely. edit: really dicks over. i'm still in the black overall but goddamn it is weird seeing money just evaporate baw fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 15:04
|
|
|
baw posted:So I have been very happy after buying GIMO at the IPO, and then had a bad day yesterday because they are doing another stock offering. I looked it up on Investopedia and the reason for the drop is that the value of the shares already sold will be diluted with another offering and that makes sense mathematically. However, it really dicks over the investors that bought at the IPO and stuck it out doesn't it? Seems kinda lovely. Yeah that's why most IPOs are not-great investments. Insiders dump shares to the public with the help of investment banks who hype up the company and its IPO, and there's absolutely no guarantee that they won't further dilute or do something else equally lovely. As a stock investor, you HAVE TO understand that you are at the bottom of the barrel - especially at the IPO, when you're basically helping to fund a giant payday for insiders and early investors. In the event of bankruptcy, you get paid after everyone else. Dividends (when a company offers them) are frequently the first thing to go when a company slips in profitability. Unless you own a ton of shares, your voice doesn't matter. And even then... That's why you should be extremely wary of buying most stocks, and most IPOs. edit: I mean, look at the who's who of dickhole i-banks who are running this second offering: quote:Goldman, Sachs & Co., BofA Merrill Lynch and Credit Suisse are acting as lead joint book-running managers for the offering and Raymond James, Pacific Crest and William Blair are acting as co-managers for the offering. You really want to be buying when those guys are selling? tiananman fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
Lesson learned, I guess. Not sure how this lesson is actionable in the future but I guess I'll avoid IPOs or something. Kinda makes me hesitant to hold on to anything long-term. Maybe I'll just sell everything and invest in some mutual funds or something. edit: so if they're doing the second offering at $38.50 per share, shouldn't the outstanding shares be worth that? baw fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
baw posted:edit: You should probably do significantly more reading about order books, bid/ask spreads, and dilution before you do any more playing with markets if you're asking this question. If you can exit profitably today, you might want to consider doing so and holding cash until you can explain to your own satisfaction why they can offer at $38.50/share but the current market price is 33.71.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
I'll consider doing that and hit up investopedia to do some learning I suppose. It's tempting to just take the money and run tho.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 16:08
|
|
|
baw posted:I'll consider doing that and hit up investopedia to do some learning I suppose. It's tempting to just take the money and run tho. Have you spent any time paper trading? Does your brokerage support it? It's not super easy to tell someone they're in over their head, and it's even more difficult to hear it. I feel like the questions you're asking indicate you still have a lot of material to learn about, but you have to make that call, it's your money. If you paper trade while you're learning, you suffer the opportunity cost of not actually making any real profits off your good trades. You can always lose everything with real money, but if you're learning with real money, literally everyone else participating in the market is going to be willing and happy to take it from you when you make a mistake. If you DO feel you're in over your head: - Consider closing out your GIMO position, move it to something with modest yield and good stability like a dividend ETF. This is better than holding cash as you can get some return, but is less risky than holding a stock that doesn't have any dividends and can only make you money off appreciation. - Start playing with paper trades. If you have an opinion about how GIMO will be a good investment, play it out in paper first. - Investopedia is a good resource. Take what you learn there and try applying it in paper. Try doing really boneheaded things to figure out the rules. Push on your ignorance and see what the consequences are, a good paper trading platform will punish you for doing silly things, but you won't be losing anything real over it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
Yeah it sucks to hear it but it's something that I might have to accept. I'm still up 5% over four months but I'll put things on hold (I'll have to figure out what that means in my case, maybe doing as you suggested with GIMO) while I learn a bit. My brokerage does offer paper trades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Ford's big profit announcement this morning certainly has given me a little cash chub. God, I love buying blue-chips at a discount.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
baw posted:Yeah it sucks to hear it but it's something that I might have to accept. I'm still up 5% over four months but I'll put things on hold (I'll have to figure out what that means in my case, maybe doing as you suggested with GIMO) while I learn a bit. My brokerage does offer paper trades. You could also play the Investopedia Simulator. On top of trading it allows you to trade with options and shorts. 15 minute delays are in place so you'd be kind of limited in intraday trading to more of a "this feels right" type of situation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
nebby posted:edit: Also with regard to understanding market sentiment via TA, I would happily take a basic sector-local and market cap-local percentile measure of EV/EBIT over some mystical momentum signal any day to gauge relative sentiment. Tell me what stocks the market is pricing as garbage and the creme de la creme, and let me decide if I disagree with any of those conclusions. Makes for a much easier, more objective way to try to grok market sentiment about individual firms than how fast the day traders are hallucinating about double edged hammer rising flag death omens or whatever the gently caress. And your edge over a million other guys looking at the same data is...what? But let's not have this ridiculous TA vs FA debate, people make money with both methods. tiananman posted:Yeah that's why most IPOs are not-great investments. Insiders dump shares to the public with the help of investment banks who hype up the company and its IPO, and there's absolutely no guarantee that they won't further dilute or do something else equally lovely. You can apply that logic to literally every stock and not be in the market ever. Yes there are risks, but what are you doing here if you're not willing to take risks? As for IPOs, buy IPOs if you believe in the company's business model and feel they have high future growth. Don't buy because some analyst is hyping it. Do keep in mind that the risk adjusted return on IPOs are pretty poor. Sanky Panky posted:4. Why not short, I do not see any fundamental reason for this rally. Can was kicked down the road and sooner or later the market will catch up to it. I can think of 85 billion reasons why not to short this market. US economic growth has been slow the past 4 years during which we had the greatest stock market rally we recent memory. At this point slow growth actually prompts stock rallies because it means the Fed won't taper. EDIT: TSLA hitting resistance now, let's see if the bear trap snaps. Gamesguy fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:Ford's big profit announcement this morning certainly has given me a little cash chub. God, I love buying blue-chips at a discount. I was thinking of getting into Ford when it was in selling at 12. Even posted on this forum asking if it was a good buy. I still see upside on this stock and it was no surprise that there earnings came back better than expected. Since buying Sbux and JNJ I'm telling myself to hold back buying more stocks with the exception of occasionally putting cash in my indexes because I want to hold some cash back. Since getting into investing in May, I feel like I'm always buying market highs here. Where else is Ford popular other than North America? Does it have a large presence in Europe? Because some investors are counting on a European recovery and would Ford do well if Europe's economy improves? Also hoping for AAPL to drop below 500 so I can buy some more. I'm also looking at buying a life insurance stock and was looking at AFLAC when it was in the low 50s. I thought it would peak at 60 but it keeps going higher. dogpower fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 21:08
|
|
|
dogpower posted:Where else is Ford popular other than North America? Does it have a large presence in Europe? Because some investors are counting on a European recovery and would Ford do well if Europe's economy improves? Ford is huge in Europe, and basically all of their new successful "small" cars in North America were brought over from Europe where they have been successful for years. For example, NA used to get shafted with a lovely NA-only version of the Focus, but now we get essentially the same Focus as in Europe and it is a huge improvement. Similarly, the Fusion is basically the same car as the Mondeo which has been around in Europe for many years. And the Fiesta and Transit Connect have been popular in Europe for years but are only just recently hitting North American shores.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
nebby posted:Also it's a dead giveaway that you don't know what you are talking about if your only criteria for assessing someone's investment decisions is if they "beat the market." This is about as dumb as people saying Google stock is expensive because it is $1000 per share. If you have half a brain you should be asking for their Sharpe and Sortino ratio, and if you have a full brain you should be asking them about how they were exposed to various asset classes and return drivers, what valuation methodology drove their decisions, and how they hedged against tail risk and so on. Before you start calling other people half brain please look at the facts:
The way I learned this game was to learn from my mistakes. There is no magic book, FA ratio, or TA indicator. At the end, all of it is bullshit if you don't know how to manage your behavior under pressure and during good times. You can sit all day looking at graphs or punching numbers in the calculator and it wont prepare you for what is out there. Yes poo poo happens...and you need to be ready for it and if you don't have proper risk management strategies you will be out of the market sooner or later. I can give lots of examples but I don't want this to spiral this thread into a FA vs TA bullshit argument cause it is not the real purpose of it. You sound like a bitter 2008 investor that sold everything in the lows. Please keep to the point of the thread and stop calling other people that do not follow your style stupid. See you in the market Gamesguy posted:
Growth is slowing comparable to the last months. I am not talking about the last 4 years. That is useless to me to make a day by day decision. The tapering... To get real growth you need taper, strong dollar, high interest rates, etc... It has been the catalyst but it wont last forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
Sanky Panky posted:
...except for dividends, surely?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Is Twitter going to be worth touching at around $20/share?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 22:08
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:...except for dividends, surely? The share price drops by the amount of the dividend. A dividend isn't a 'payout', it is a conversion of partial value of your share. If a company with a $50/sh price pays a $10 special dividend, you don't get a $50/sh and $10 added to your account- you get $10 subtracted from the value of your share (you now have a $40 share) and $10 cash in your account. So yes, it is zero-sum game between the value of your shares and the cash balance in your account. The concept of dividends as income is absolutely incorrect- Warren Buffett explains this pretty well http://www.nasdaq.com/article/warren-buffett-hates-dividends-cm262834 This is a big part of the argument in favor of not taxing dividends. Dividends are actually a negative sum game for an individual investor with a taxable account, assuming you believe the company you own shares in is competent with money (which, as Buffett points out, if you don't believe this why do you own the shares??) greasyhands fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:The share price drops by the amount of the dividend. A dividend isn't a 'payout', it is a conversion of partial value of your share. If a company with a $50/sh price pays a $10 special dividend, you don't get a $50/sh and $10 added to your account- you get $10 subtracted from the value of your share (you now have a $40 share) and $10 cash in your account. So yes, it is zero-sum game between the value of your shares and the cash balance in your account. The concept of dividends as income is absolutely incorrect- Warren Buffett explains this pretty well It's kind of disingenuous to say Buffett hates dividends. His argument is that his entire company's business is investing in other stocks, so there's no reason to pay a dividend because the entire reason you buy Berkshire is for him to invest your money into his choice of stocks so him having more money to invest with is always better. The entire reason you buy Berkshire is to invest in a bunch of stocks, paying a dividend means taking away from this purpose. That's far different from a company like Microsoft who invests their money in bad tablets but always pays out a dividend from profits on selling services. People hold it because they always expect a nice fixed payment but know that Microsoft is absolutely terrible at using their cash and the return on any investment they make is 0. In fact, you could even make the argument that a company's share price could decrease if they removed a dividend theoretically for this reason. Dividend payouts can affect investor sentiment which can affect share price. Lots of people make money owning shares in stocks which they don't believe are run competently. koolkal fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
koolkal posted:
That argument is fine, and I agree with it (though I personally choose to avoid companies that I feel waste cash). It still doesn't make dividends income, they are an asset conversion that gets taxed. greasyhands fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
MSFT, AMZN, ZNGA.... Soooooo many percents in the green
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Do people still own ZNGA?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
Ford is also growing a lot in China, which is a big part of their bullish outlook. Even if the Chinese economy goes tits up like I personally think it will, people will just be more likely to buy a Ford instead of Audis.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
FlashBangBob posted:MSFT, AMZN, ZNGA.... Soooooo many percents in the green Nope. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:I was so scared that I sold my AMZN to pay for GOOG.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 01:34
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:The share price drops by the amount of the dividend. Theoretically. But only through the mechanism of bid/ask, which requires sales, which is where the zero-sum part comes in. Unless I'm grossly mistaken, which is certainly possible, which is why I'm asking... Generally speaking, the stock market is zero-sum because every transaction consists of a buyer and a seller; a security changes hands, the buyer gives money to the seller, the net is zero. The security's value may rise or fall, but until it is sold, that's an on-paper, unrealized "value" that is purely theoretical, based on looking at the most recent sales transaction that actually happened and extrapolating. When it is actually sold, money changes hands and net zero again; if you won, you got money from someone, if you lost, you gave it to someone, but at the end of the day, the total amount of money gained in the market, minus the money lost in the market, sums up to zero. But, now I think about it, there are three places where the market is non-net-zero: IPOs, dividends, and the unsold unsellable shares of a delisted, closed company. Specifically: -In an IPO, new shares are minted from nothingness and sold to the market. The initial share auction transfers money out of the market; buyers give it to the issuing company, and it is now "gone" from the market. That's a net loss to the buyers, who can only recover their loss by selling on the shares, etc. etc. -When a company is delisted and trading of its securities halt, someone is left holding all the shares. That someone paid for the shares, presumably, and now gets nothing; their value is destroyed. That's a net loss to the share holders. I think that the round-trip of an IPO and then delisting - call it the life-cycle of a publicly held company - results in net-zero. The rest of the time, the zero-sum game takes place as every winner requires a loser, and vice-versa. But dividends are different; you get money from the company's operating profits for each share you hold (as opposed to getting it from a buyer, who will then go on to sell eventually, passing along net gains and losses). In theory, transferring profit to shareholders (and out of the company) lowers the value of those shares (because the shares represent the value of the company), but that lowering-of-value is only realized when you sell the share... and someone has to buy it from you, you get their money, they get the share which stores the value they bought in, if it goes up and they sell they get more money but that money comes from the next buyer, if it goes down and they sell they lose money but the lost money is the difference which they paid you when they bought the share (so you have it), etc. It's that zero-sum game still, without considering the dividend itself. The money for the dividend comes from operating revenue of the company, not from other participants in the net-zero stock market trading game. That's why it's an exception to the zero-sum game... it's an input to the overall system. This may be a gross oversimplification or misunderstanding, but my take on what Sanky Panky was getting at by calling stock trading a zero-sum game, is the general idea that in order for one trader to win, another trader has to lose; in order to profit on a stock, someone else had to take an equivalent loss on it. I believe dividends act as a net input to the system, extracting value from the underlying company and giving it in cash to shareholders. Hmm. I guess if a company is purchased in a buyout, that's different from a company going belly-up, in that the shareholders are actually paid... then again, companies also buy back their own shares to concentrate them, which if they're doing with profits, add money to the system similarly to a dividend.... Yeah now I'm confusing myself again. Is the stock market really a zero-sum game? Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Oct 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 07:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 16:31 |
|
|
Sanky Panky posted:[*]This is a zero sum game. Leperflesh posted:Generally speaking, the stock market is zero-sum No, the stock market is absolutely not a zero sum game. 90+% of the market is long, and when equities go up, there is wealth creation. Derivatives like options and futures are zero sum because for every dollar someone gains, someone else is losing a dollar. quote:Growth is slowing comparable to the last months. I am not talking about the last 4 years. That is useless to me to make a day by day decision. Unless you have an inside source at the BEA I don't see how you could possibly predict what the monthly GDP data will be. Nor can you even predict the market reaction these days due to tapering. How could you possibly trade based on this? greasyhands posted:The share price drops by the amount of the dividend. A dividend isn't a 'payout', it is a conversion of partial value of your share. If a company with a $50/sh price pays a $10 special dividend, you don't get a $50/sh and $10 added to your account- you get $10 subtracted from the value of your share (you now have a $40 share) and $10 cash in your account. So yes, it is zero-sum game between the value of your shares and the cash balance in your account. The concept of dividends as income is absolutely incorrect- Warren Buffett explains this pretty well: This isn't true. Stock prices often(but not always) trade in anticipation of dividends and you have no idea what the stock price would be if the dividend didn't exist. And your tax argument is fallacious because capital loss deductions exist. The Buffet link has nothing to do with your point. He's talking about putting cash to work on other investments instead of paying it back to the shareholder. Gamesguy fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Oct 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2013 08:38
|
|