|
TranceAddict Investors Club @ Marketocracy (pg. 58)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
NOK cost me almost 10% since i bought it so while i fiddled with the idea of keeping it until it goes up, i decided that instead of loosing money there i might as well invest it into something else for s short term until it goes back up again. I'm guessing that that will be soon, since they have a bunch of new models coming out shortly but i cant really know for sure. At this point i am really just playing the guessing game with all my picks, since i don't have any system of picking stock yet. |
I've done a study of NOK and I like what I see. The company is worth considerably more than the market values it. That's why I bought. It's cheap so definitely don't forget about NOK. |
|
|
| Moongoose |
Not planning on it, i have it bookmarked, so as soon as i see an upward trend im buying it. I have enough money set aside to buy a decent %.
Also i just noticed that i can use marketocracy on my Nokia (:D) smartphone. Got to love it. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Funny you mention NOK. I put 8% of my new AMG Gamma Fund portfolio in NOK this week. I think it's highly undervalued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed. There are ways to mitigate risk and still be fully invested. I do it by only investing in the highest quality companies that I find which are trading at discounted prices. That's it. Is it any wonder why I'm up 15% since Jan 1, 2008 despite the housing/credit recession, high oil prices, slow GDP growth, and commodities inflation? Money can be made in all market environments. I'm also all long. None of my trades have been shorts. So that's only betting on the market to go up. You can still make gains from long trades even when the overall market is declining. |
To be fair, the quote was "no risk = no returns" which is kind of a blatantly obvious statement. What I inferred him to mean was that the more risk you take the better your performance will be, which I think is a fallacy.
"The first step toward making money is not losing it."
| quote: | | you may have heard, "If you want greater returns, you have to take more risk." The implication is that risk creates returns--as though risk represents an element that mixes with investment capital to morph into returns. In reality, risk represents a condition that drives investors to demand compensation and protection. As a result, in the financial markets, higher returns tend to be associated with higher risks, which is far different that the notion that risk drives returns...risk is not a know to be turned for greater returns. Turning the knob invites more risk; it does not drive returns. |
| quote: | Rational investors generally require riskier investments to offer higher returns than less risky investment. This bedrock financial concept governs much investment thinking and is why lower-quality bonds yield more than higher-quality bonds. But the risk/reward relationship is not always as direct as many might assume. Did Jack Welch at GE or Warren Buffett take on higher levels of risk to achieve their higher levels of return? Most analyst would say that Welch and Buffett achieved higher returns by exercising higher levels of skill than their counterparts. Analysts might even argue that a portion of their success lies in their ability to reduce risk by identifying particularly high-quality companies to add to their investment and corporate portfolios. Some investment strategies employing an absolute-return approach have generated higher returns over market cycles while assuming demonstrably less risk than the overall market.
Another misconception is that higher risk automatically means a potential for higher rewards. Risk is what rational investors assess and price into the expected return of an investment. The reason lower-quality bonds have higher yields than higher-quality bonds is that investors demand more yield for the riskier bond. The price of the lower-quality bond is set by rational investors who would not pay a price that does not compensate for the risk. It is the function of the market to set the price and terms of assets or investments with the expected financial payback based on the anticipated level of risk and losses. |
A simple example: Buying a stock at its 52-week high is riskier than buying the same stock below its 52 week high and will arguably have less potential upside than if that same stock were purchased on a pullback from its 52 week high. There are plenty of ways to lower your risk while improving your potential return profile. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
My premier pair are DRYS and EXM. FRO and TRMD are another pair of drybulk shippers worth looking at.
If you're going to spend money on a stock, you might find it useful to know how much the stock is inherently worth before putting your money in it. Stocks are like cars, you never want to buy before not knowing its true value. I can value stocks using a pretty in depth algorithm which basically appraises stock value based on the performance of the underlying company over the past 5 years. If you would like to know what I would value a stock, let me know...;) |
What do your algorithms tell you about CXO and AREX, both small oil & gas explorations? I have CXO now, have been watching AREX and am kicking myself for not buying at 19.xx last week when it dropped on news of some fund dumping it.
Both are fairly low volume, with AREX having incredibly low volume. CXO just made a $565M buy of oil & gas properties afterhours tonight, so I'm interested to see how it moves tomorrow. |
|
|
| mndeg |
of course there's always money to be made, especially when things seem bad. those are often the best times to be making trades.
NOK is at a 52week low, it must have nothing spectacular in the product pipeline. once it bounces back and it most likely will soon it'll be a pretty good short term trade imo |
|
|
| jonSun |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I've done a study of NOK and I like what I see. The company is worth considerably more than the market values it. That's why I bought. It's cheap so definitely don't forget about NOK. |
Ive been eyeing that stock since your mentioned it. It went down today & has gone down a bit in after hours trading. Any ideas of when its gonna bottom out? Im thinking soon.
what do u think of TTM, PAL, SWC, RTP, PTR, USO at the moment? |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by jonSun
Ive been eyeing that stock since your mentioned it. It went down today & has gone down a bit in after hours trading. Any ideas of when its gonna bottom out? Im thinking soon. |
I have no idea when it could bottom out. I really don't ever try to time the market. What I do see is a good stock that selling at cheap prices.
| quote: | what do u think of TTM, PAL, SWC, RTP, PTR, USO at the moment?
What do your algorithms tell you about CXO and AREX, both small oil & gas explorations? I have CXO now, have been watching AREX and am kicking myself for not buying at 19.xx last week when it dropped on news of some fund dumping it.
Both are fairly low volume, with AREX having incredibly low volume. CXO just made a $565M buy of oil & gas properties afterhours tonight, so I'm interested to see how it moves tomorrow. |
I'll see what the algorithm says tomorrow...;) |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
I'll see what the algorithm says tomorrow...;) |
Will the short public life of them make a difference? I know it's skewing a lot of the ratios since neither have a full year on the market. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
This antitrust news with Intel today that helped crashed the markets reminds me why I'm going to be very leery to invest if Obama gets the Presidency. We will have the dems in complete control of government, and I think this sort of nonsense will become commonplace...companies being investigated and brought up under the microscope for being "too successful"..."too profitable" in the marketplace. We will have dozens of new rules and regulations in place to make it harder for companies to make money.
Ignore the fact that we now get unbelievably fast performance from our desktop computers at record low prices. Ignore the amazing advances in technology we have thanks to Intel. They are just taking too much market share from AMD because they are too damn good. It's not "fair". It's not "social justice" for Intel's smaller competitors, so the do-gooders in Washington must intervene.
Ugh..
More wars and political instability with Mccain = bad for stocks
An unimpeded anti-business, anti market agenda with Obama = bad for stocks.
I'm thinking January/Feb will be a good time to sell everything, before the sh!t hits the fan. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
More wars and political instability with Mccain = bad for stocks
An unimpeded anti-business, anti market agenda with Obama = bad for stocks.
I'm thinking January/Feb will be a good time to sell everything, before the sh!t hits the fan. |
wow...that's a gross overstatement - more accurately, misstatement. US politics has less effect on many corporations than you think. GE earns more than 50% of its revenue from overseas. Furthermore, foreign stocks are insulted from US policy, unless they choose to do business here.
in any event, it's not so glum, there will soon be an upswell of support to lower corporate tax rates. That shouls occur in the next two administrations. that's good for you stock picks. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
I don't buy that...I don't think any stocks are insulated from US foreign policy. We are the lone hyperpower, and when we start throwing our weight around in the world everyone else is effected. It's true companies that get a large part of their revenue outside the US will fare better when we go through tough times, but I don't think they are immune to the stupid policy decisions of our leaders. If Mccain bombs Iran, the price of oil will go up 50% on the world market, and that's going to send stocks crashing down across the globe..
If the US openly accepts some socialist ideas and philosophies that we have been resisting for the past 50 years, I'm afraid the entrepreneurial "engine" that has been holding our economy together will finally sputter to a halt...and that is going to be a huge blow to China and every other country that sells us their goods..
What we really need a sound foreign policy of non-intervention, and a sound domestic policy based on a respect for property rights and the rule of law. Unfortunately we seem to be headed in the opposite direction on both fronts, so I'm very bearish on the next few years unless we see some drastic changes. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I don't buy that...I don't think any stocks are insulated from US foreign policy. We are the lone hyperpower, and when we start throwing our weight around in the world everyone else is effected. It's true companies that get a large part of their revenue outside the US will fare better when we go through tough times, but I don't think they are immune to the stupid policy decisions of our leaders. If Mccain bombs Iran, the price of oil will go up 50% on the world market, and that's going to send stocks crashing down across the globe..
If the US openly accepts some socialist ideas and philosophies that we have been resisting for the past 50 years, I'm afraid the entrepreneurial "engine" that has been holding our economy together will finally sputter to a halt...and that is going to be a huge blow to China and every other country that sells us their goods..
What we really need a sound foreign policy of non-intervention, and a sound domestic policy based on a respect for property rights and the rule of law. Unfortunately we seem to be headed in the opposite direction on both fronts, so I'm very bearish on the next few years unless we see some drastic changes. |
my comment wasn't meant to be a blanket statement. of course US bombing iran would increase oil prices. but war time has also usually meant boom time. the recent stupid policy is that during war taxes were cut. that's a bad precedent. tax rates were as high as 90% during the WWs.
my point is that if obama is succesful in implementing his socialist agenda, he still won't nationalize industries. thos industries will still be players, albeit, possibly under a different set of restrictions. even his medical insurance policy still has private insurance companies ruling the day. You tell me exactly how obama's policies will have a wide ranging negative effect on the economy? that kind of speculation is just that: speculation.
Also, i feel the need to say something about higher taxes because i know it will eventually come up given obama's stance. Higher taxes does not mean lower growth, it means private citizens and companies can't choose how to use the extra amount that was taxed. Instead, the government is going to make that choice for them. If the government chooses to use that money in productive ways, it can be as effective as private investment. in fact, public investment is sometimes much more profitable for all than private investment - e.g., roads, ports, etc.... Conversely, poor public investment slow growth. However, the money that is being taxed doesn't disappear, it is used to pay salaries, build roads, etc... all uses that contribute to the american GDP. THe problem exists when government's use of tax revenue isn't the best use of the cash - ie., senate investigations on steroid use, etc... |
|
|
|
|
