So_Cynical
The Contrarian Averager
- Joined
- 31 August 2007
- Posts
- 7,467
- Reactions
- 1,469
Lincoln Indicators does FA better than anyone else I've seen. Very expensive, but if I had a multi-mill$ blue chip portfolio, it would be number one on my list of must haves.
Lincoln Indicators does FA better than anyone else I've seen. Very expensive, but if I had a multi-mill$ blue chip portfolio, it would be number one on my list of must haves.
So if you had a multi million portfolio that you got by not using Lincoln Indicators, you would then use them?and why the hell wouldn't you be relaxing on the beach in Phuket, getting a $10 coconut oil massage? i know that's what i would be doing if i had a multi million portfolio.
Yes well if this subject was on another thread I would be very interested in opinions on trading a trend.The most important thing ?
Is the trend !
Motorway
How ever how do you truly form an opinion on a company you know nothing about when all your reading is there own propaganda?
Hi mattryanshares,
I always tell myself to be careful when I read anything. When I read, I ask myself this:
What does the person writing the article have to gain from writing it?
I look for consensus amongst research houses. I believe that the more research houses recommending the same stock the better.
!
I was going to create a thread asking this question, but this thread seems to be along similar lines so I'll ask it here.
Assuming one is investing for capital gains rather than dividends, wouldn't one be better off choosing more popular shares over shares of companies that have the 'fundamentals'?
I mean, if everyone thinks that company x is great (when in actual fact it's not), they'll all rush to buy the shares therefore propping the SP up. And if everyone thinks company z sucks (when in fact it is the most fundamentally sound on the market), then the SP will never go anywhere because no one likes it?
Heaps of people thought ABC, TLS, QAN were great ten years ago - look up a ten year chart for these.
BHP was not very popular ten years ago look at that chart.
that means the merit of your decision didn't really matter, as it was still decided by popularity.
Yes, but provided you capitalised on your gain (or loss) within those ten years, that means the merit of your decision didn't really matter, as it was still decided by popularity.
Ah Tyler, you have latched on to the basis of trend following, i.e. jump onto a rising SP and hold until it starts to fall.I was going to create a thread asking this question, but this thread seems to be along similar lines so I'll ask it here.
Assuming one is investing for capital gains rather than dividends, wouldn't one be better off choosing more popular shares over shares of companies that have the 'fundamentals'?
I mean, if everyone thinks that company x is great (when in actual fact it's not), they'll all rush to buy the shares therefore propping the SP up. And if everyone thinks company z sucks (when in fact it is the most fundamentally sound on the market), then the SP will never go anywhere because no one likes it?
I was going to create a thread asking this question, but this thread seems to be along similar lines so I'll ask it here.
Assuming one is investing for capital gains rather than dividends, wouldn't one be better off choosing more popular shares over shares of companies that have the 'fundamentals'?
I mean, if everyone thinks that company x is great (when in actual fact it's not), they'll all rush to buy the shares therefore propping the SP up. And if everyone thinks company z sucks (when in fact it is the most fundamentally sound on the market), then the SP will never go anywhere because no one likes it?
. My initial pondering really was meant to say, what if everyone was wrong about a company, thinking it was great when it wasn't? The SP of that company would still go up, and if everyone is wrong about a fundamentally sound company, that company's SP would not go anywhere.
what if everyone was wrong about a company, thinking it was great when it wasn't? The SP of that company would still go up, and if everyone is wrong about a fundamentally sound company, that company's SP would not go anywhere.
Well let's just take a business that is morally horrific, yet financially sound in a fundamental sense. Assuming the business is against the morals of everyone, no one would want to buy the shares. So no matter how 'great' it is doing financially, the SP will not go anywhere.
But that's going off on a slight tangent. My initial pondering really was meant to say, what if everyone was wrong about a company, thinking it was great when it wasn't? The SP of that company would still go up, and if everyone is wrong about a fundamentally sound company, that company's SP would not go anywhere.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?