[Stocks] Noob to trading...

[boost]

Looking to get into stocks and was looking at etrade. Has anyone used them or prefer using a different company? How much would be a good upfront initial investment($1000-$5000)?What types of things should I buy as a noob (stocks, efts, funds, forex,ect)?

Just looking for info.

Thanks

[SmallFry]

Invest in keyboards... Oh wait, nevermind. I'll be watching this thread. I've been wanting to get into stocks as well. Seems like a feasible way to start making a little money to put towards college.

[alaricljs]

I prefer TDAmeritrade's tools (the ones they bought: thinkorswim, InvesTools/Prophet Charts).

To start I would recommend ETFs tracking an industry or sub-set.  For instance ones that are oil&gas, power generation, shipping, finance.  The sub-sets would be discovery/exploitation/refining, wind/solar/nuke/fossil, trucking/rail/boat, insurance/banking/credit.  Learn about reading charts and how news and other sectors performance affect the one you are looking at.  Look into sector rotation, this is where certain sectors are strong at certain times of the year or are strong because another sector is weak.

The most important thing about trading is managing your trade.  You need to understand how much is at risk in a trade and how to CYA.  You need to know how much to risk so you don't trade yourself out of trading.  Have an exit strategy before you enter the trade.  You need to leave your emotions and superstitions at the door.  I refuse to buy the products of certain corporations, I have no issue trading a vast majority of them.  I don't buy a stock because I 'like' them or their product.  You go into a trade knowing what the stock is going to do to make you money and you get out if it doesn't do it.

There's a ton of ways to analyze a stock and they all work for someone.  Find a method that works for you, you could go visual and ignore anything that isn't chartable, pure fundamental (this is an investing tactic mostly) which is where news and financial reports are your daily read, and others.  You can mix and match all this to suit yourself and as long as you apply your rules consistently you should be able to predict something.  Then you get to figure out how to make a profit trading that something.  Maybe you're good at determining a stock that'll go stagnant for weeks on end, yes you can make money on that too.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[swagpiratex]

Me and my buddies have this theory, where the more you understand about the industry, the closer your valuation of the company will be. Do your homework, and most importantly, pull the trigger when you need to. That includes when you have to cut your losses.

[Malphas]

If there's a certain stock that takes your fancy, then fair enough but otherwise just buy the cheapest, broadest index tracker you can find. Even professionally managed funds (as a collective) don't beat the market when you compile the average, so what's the point? Unless you just fancy dabbling in trading as a hobby, I guess.

[alaricljs]

Funds have to follow rules that you don't, this is one of the biggest reasons that they don't beat anything.  Actively trading (not investing) can make money, if you get truly good at it you can make a lot of money.

[swagpiratex]

Know your industry and take positions when you hear about industry news, and before investing publications get wind of it. Pay attention to when insiders exit, and always read the MD&A (Managerial Discussion n Analysis) sections in the financial reports. Unless ur lazy and don't feel like making money.

[tp4tissue]

This is probably the worst place to ask for stock advice..

If you don't do this professionally, you can only trade sure things... like AMD, Intel, and Apple..

The reason I say those 3 are sure things, is because their products fvcking matter "almost" as much as the "perceived" performance of the company.

Whereas smaller companies have much less spectators, and require huge investment in research to obtain reliable information.

[boost]

Thanks for the info everyone.


Tp, I don't believe this is the worst place to ask this question.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

[ra7c7er]

I used to own stock. 2 of the 3 I've sold and  made money the other I still have and pays dividends but not much. In order to really make money you have to invest a lot of money or get in on the ground floor of something and us common folk rarely ever find that kind of chance.

[boost]

I used to own stock. 2 of the 3 I've sold and  made money the other I still have and pays dividends but not much. In order to really make money you have to invest a lot of money or get in on the ground floor of something and us common folk rarely ever find that kind of chance.

We can only hunt for that next big thing.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

[swagpiratex]

The only thing you need to figure out if a company is a good investment is all provided for free. Look for a company's 10-K or 10-Q (annual and quarterly reports, respectively). All the numbers you need to run analysis are there. MD&A and notes are also extremely important to read. All this talk about needing money to do investment research is false. Paying for it just makes it faster, since most of the important analysis is done for you.

[boost]

The only thing you need to figure out if a company is a good investment is all provided for free. Look for a company's 10-K or 10-Q (annual and quarterly reports, respectively). All the numbers you need to run analysis are there. MD&A and notes are also extremely important to read. All this talk about needing money to do investment research is false. Paying for it just makes it faster, since most of the important analysis is done for you.

Cool beans. Gotta check that out

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

[tp4tissue]

The only thing you need to figure out if a company is a good investment is all provided for free. Look for a company's 10-K or 10-Q (annual and quarterly reports, respectively). All the numbers you need to run analysis are there. MD&A and notes are also extremely important to read. All this talk about needing money to do investment research is false. Paying for it just makes it faster, since most of the important analysis is done for you.

Ah...... This strategy isn't the most effective for small time investors. Those reports are doctored to hell and back as well.

The only numbers they don't fluff are patent dates.  )

[Malphas]

Not to mention all the information in those reports will most likely have been read by everyone else before you, which will mean it's already reflected in the share price... Trying to apply a rational model to investing in stock is naive because at the end of the day it's just like betting on a beauty contest, what you're essentially doing is buying a stock (betting your money) on which company (girl) is going to appreciate most in value (perceived to be the prettiest by the crowd).

[tp4tissue]

Not to mention all the information in those reports will most likely have been read by everyone else before you, which will mean it's already reflected in the share price... Trying to apply a rational model to investing in stock is naive because at the end of the day it's just like betting on a beauty contest, what you're essentially doing is buying a stock (betting your money) on which company (girl) is going to appreciate most in value (perceived to be the prettiest by the crowd).

Um... well.. ok.. Yes, it's like a beauty contest in that the factors involved have fuzzy boundaries and are often subjective.

But, traders go a little further in the sense that some will go and measure the body fat content of the contestant. This is not a perfect indicator, of course, but it's better than "not" having that information.

[Malphas]

Um... well.. ok..

You realise the analogy I was using was alluding to Keynesian theory right, not just something I pulled out of my ass? My point is when you're investing a stock it matters little what the company's "true" value is (if such a thing existed), all that matters is how much people think its worth, which is why most people are kidding themselves if they think they're good at investment.

The stock market is not a zero sum game, it's possible for everyone to turn a profit due to the general historical trend of economies growing over the decades/centuries (apart from the odd exception like the Japanese bubble). However statistically it's a bell curve with some people having a greater than average return and others less, so you can define "winners" and "losers" in that sense. Essentially then, there are three classifications of "winners":

a) A small minority of exceptionally gifted players.

b) Inside traders.

c) The inevitable outer fringe of the bell curve, many of whom delude themselves into thinking they're there because of talent, rather than luck.

I'd imagine that group C is an order of magnitude larger than group A, and part of my reasoning for this is the fact that actual managed funds for the most part do not beat the market, and the fact there is no rational methodology for valuing a stock's potential due to it being entirely subjective. You really need to understand things like EMH and its limitations and the resurgence of Keynesian economics in response to the crash in recent years before you go tossing your money into the stock market.

Also, I'm not disagreeing with you tp4tissue, your posts are probably the best advice given in this thread.

[tp4tissue]

Um... well.. ok..

You realise the analogy I was using was alluding to Keynesian theory right, not just something I pulled out of my ass? My point is when you're investing a stock it matters little what the company's "true" value is (if such a thing existed), all that matters is how much people think its worth, which is why most people are kidding themselves if they think they're good at investment.

The stock market is not a zero sum game, it's possible for everyone to turn a profit due to the general historical trend of economies growing over the decades/centuries (apart from the odd exception like the Japanese bubble). However statistically it's a bell curve with some people having a greater than average return and others less, so you can define "winners" and "losers" in that sense. Essentially then, there are three classifications of "winners":

a) A small minority of exceptionally gifted players.

b) Inside traders.

c) The inevitable outer fringe of the bell curve, many of whom delude themselves into thinking they're there because of talent, rather than luck.

I'd imagine that group C is an order of magnitude larger than group A, and part of my reasoning for this is the fact that actual managed funds for the most part do not beat the market, and the fact there is no rational methodology for valuing a stock's potential due to it being entirely subjective. You really need to understand things like EMH and its limitations and the resurgence of Keynesian economics in response to the crash in recent years before you go tossing your money into the stock market.

Also, I'm not disagreeing with you tp4tissue, your posts are probably the best advice given in this thread.

I've always felt that Keynesian is just a very loquacious of saying we can't know everything, and if we can't know everything, we're too stupid to balance all the equations.

Not sure how this is remotely helpful. It's like saying, let's have religion in economics, and wooo hooo, FAITH....

[AKIMbO]

Make sure to hedge your stocks.  Don't buy a stock without buying an option for it too....use options to your advantage to lessen your losses.

[boost]

Make sure to hedge your stocks.  Don't buy a stock naked....use options to your advantage to lessen your losses.

:thump:

[boost]

Make sure to hedge your stocks.  Don't buy a stock naked....use options to your advantage to lessen your losses.

Very true!!

[AKIMbO]

boost ninja'd me!

I was going to say...look up protective puts, straddles, strangles, etc.  I don't know how much you are investing but you can also use T-bills as a sort of guaranteed income/hedging tool as well.

[boost]

boost ninja'd me!

I was going to say...look up protective puts, straddles, strangles, etc.  I don't know how much you are investing but you can also use T-bills as a sort of guaranteed income/hedging tool as well.

lol...very interesting. Will also look into this

[tp4tissue]

WTF, guys, you're talking like those "I never lose" fund managers.

There's a reason people think hedge funds are awesome, it's cuz they always advertise "I never lose". Because as soon as they do, they just claim bankruptcy and run to a different country to start another hedge fund.

There does exist reasons for hedging, but there's no way a small investor absolutely "needs" it as part of his portfolio, because that's just extra research ontop of his plate.

I don't believe in diversification either, Fvck you jim cramer.
So he wants you to be in ALL industries, so that if one collapses, you're ok on the other stuff.

This is a LONG term big trader strategy, in which case without huge capital, is useless, you might as well sell drugs on the side and take it down tax free.

For the little guys, buying a billion different things means you have NO idea what some of those things are... Information is key.. And I don't mean information from freakin' CNBC,  )
 

And I'm assuming all of you have day jobs, so there's no way you have the capacity for effective hedging.

Now if Options are the ONLY trades you're making, then that's really just low stakes, low probability trading, because the pay offs are great, but the likelihood of winning is very small...  Some people do this exclusively, but they usually have a research department. or insiders info.


And please don't bring up the cases where people hedged overseas during the subprime bubble, there were only 6-7 guys who made it out positive. Everyone else was still ****ed or barely broke even.

They rave about being geniuses when they were in fact still just "LUCKY"..

If Bundesbank wanted to keep everything afloat, they could've, and those hedgers would be broke, and running to another country like all the other guys....

So, say it with me people, STOCKS is GAMBLING... if you're not too stupid to go to a casino, don't be stupid enough to buy stocks in things you have no in depth knowledge of. I refer specifically to options.

[Malphas]

Um... well.. ok..

You realise the analogy I was using was alluding to Keynesian theory right, not just something I pulled out of my ass? My point is when you're investing a stock it matters little what the company's "true" value is (if such a thing existed), all that matters is how much people think its worth, which is why most people are kidding themselves if they think they're good at investment.

The stock market is not a zero sum game, it's possible for everyone to turn a profit due to the general historical trend of economies growing over the decades/centuries (apart from the odd exception like the Japanese bubble). However statistically it's a bell curve with some people having a greater than average return and others less, so you can define "winners" and "losers" in that sense. Essentially then, there are three classifications of "winners":

a) A small minority of exceptionally gifted players.

b) Inside traders.

c) The inevitable outer fringe of the bell curve, many of whom delude themselves into thinking they're there because of talent, rather than luck.

I'd imagine that group C is an order of magnitude larger than group A, and part of my reasoning for this is the fact that actual managed funds for the most part do not beat the market, and the fact there is no rational methodology for valuing a stock's potential due to it being entirely subjective. You really need to understand things like EMH and its limitations and the resurgence of Keynesian economics in response to the crash in recent years before you go tossing your money into the stock market.

Also, I'm not disagreeing with you tp4tissue, your posts are probably the best advice given in this thread.

I've always felt that Keynesian is just a very loquacious of saying we can't know everything, and if we can't know everything, we're too stupid to balance all the equations.

Not sure how this is remotely helpful. It's like saying, let's have religion in economics, and wooo hooo, FAITH....

I don't think you understood what I was saying then, since you're saying almost the exact same thing as me.

[tp4tissue]

Um... well.. ok..

You realise the analogy I was using was alluding to Keynesian theory right, not just something I pulled out of my ass? My point is when you're investing a stock it matters little what the company's "true" value is (if such a thing existed), all that matters is how much people think its worth, which is why most people are kidding themselves if they think they're good at investment.

The stock market is not a zero sum game, it's possible for everyone to turn a profit due to the general historical trend of economies growing over the decades/centuries (apart from the odd exception like the Japanese bubble). However statistically it's a bell curve with some people having a greater than average return and others less, so you can define "winners" and "losers" in that sense. Essentially then, there are three classifications of "winners":

a) A small minority of exceptionally gifted players.

b) Inside traders.

c) The inevitable outer fringe of the bell curve, many of whom delude themselves into thinking they're there because of talent, rather than luck.

I'd imagine that group C is an order of magnitude larger than group A, and part of my reasoning for this is the fact that actual managed funds for the most part do not beat the market, and the fact there is no rational methodology for valuing a stock's potential due to it being entirely subjective. You really need to understand things like EMH and its limitations and the resurgence of Keynesian economics in response to the crash in recent years before you go tossing your money into the stock market.

Also, I'm not disagreeing with you tp4tissue, your posts are probably the best advice given in this thread.

I've always felt that Keynesian is just a very loquacious of saying we can't know everything, and if we can't know everything, we're too stupid to balance all the equations.

Not sure how this is remotely helpful. It's like saying, let's have religion in economics, and wooo hooo, FAITH....

I don't think you understood what I was saying then, since you're saying almost the exact same thing as me.

??

You made a general statement with tie in with keyn

I commented on how I feel about Keynesian, in that I'm not a huge fan.

Your statement doesn't take a stance, it only reports,

So, I don't see where there's a discrepancy.

No one's disagreeing with anyone.

[Malphas]

Of course I'm taking a stance, ha ha. I'm reaffirming my original point of it being misguided the majority of the time to attempt to buy and sell individual stocks, unless you just want to do it for fun, or there's a particular company you're interested in.

[swagpiratex]

So, say it with me people, STOCKS is GAMBLING... if you're not too stupid to go to a casino, don't be stupid enough to buy stocks in things you have no in depth knowledge of. I refer specifically to options.

It isn't gambling to people like you and I who understand how the financial statements work together, and the implication of each ratio in relation to the metrics they're tied to. Just look at AMZN. They're trading at a P/E ratio of 300x. How long do you expect us to hold that stock before breaking even? But yea, too complicated for most.

You're completely right about the options. I think that no one that hasn't passed the CFA Level I or equivalent should be touching derivatives. That's straight up gambling right there, unless you're privy to inside information.

[tp4tissue]

So, say it with me people, STOCKS is GAMBLING... if you're not too stupid to go to a casino, don't be stupid enough to buy stocks in things you have no in depth knowledge of. I refer specifically to options.

It isn't gambling to people like you and I who understand how the financial statements work together, and the implication of each ratio in relation to the metrics they're tied to. Just look at AMZN. They're trading at a P/E ratio of 300x. How long do you expect us to hold that stock before breaking even? But yea, too complicated for most.

You're completely right about the options. I think that no one that hasn't passed the CFA Level I or equivalent should be touching derivatives. That's straight up gambling right there, unless you're privy to inside information.

I don't like anything dot com, but AMZN is the exception.  Ever since they popped $100 I feel like the Christmas trade scenario has been very consistent.

I would NEVER bet on NewYears in the USA, because there's way too much mayhem news that reaches investors when the drinking is over, and then the big wigs realize, ****, we didn't make any money, damn it, why arn't they buying more dollars, these complex derivative mustn't be complex enough, but no worries, lets just plan to "trim the fat" aka "fvck the little guys", and everybody above this pay-grade gets bonuses and hookers, wh000000t.....

[Malphas]

So, say it with me people, STOCKS is GAMBLING... if you're not too stupid to go to a casino, don't be stupid enough to buy stocks in things you have no in depth knowledge of. I refer specifically to options.

It isn't gambling to people like you and I who understand how the financial statements work together, and the implication of each ratio in relation to the metrics they're tied to. Just look at AMZN. They're trading at a P/E ratio of 300x. How long do you expect us to hold that stock before breaking even? But yea, too complicated for most.

You're completely right about the options. I think that no one that hasn't passed the CFA Level I or equivalent should be touching derivatives. That's straight up gambling right there, unless you're privy to inside information.

This is my point with the beauty contest analogy. You really think the P/E ratio is the be-all, end-all of how a stock is going to perform? It's one tiny factor amongst thousands, maybe millions of others. P/E ratio is elementary school stuff, if you think you can reliably predict performance based on stuff like this - which everyone else knows as well, rendering the information useless anyway - then you're deluding yourself. It's like thinking you can reliably bet on a horse race by measuring the length of the horse's tail.

[AKIMbO]

So, say it with me people, STOCKS is GAMBLING... if you're not too stupid to go to a casino, don't be stupid enough to buy stocks in things you have no in depth knowledge of. I refer specifically to options.

It isn't gambling to people like you and I who understand how the financial statements work together, and the implication of each ratio in relation to the metrics they're tied to. Just look at AMZN. They're trading at a P/E ratio of 300x. How long do you expect us to hold that stock before breaking even? But yea, too complicated for most.

You're completely right about the options. I think that no one that hasn't passed the CFA Level I or equivalent should be touching derivatives. That's straight up gambling right there, unless you're privy to inside information.

This is my point with the beauty contest analogy. You really think the P/E ratio is the be-all, end-all of how a stock is going to perform? It's one tiny factor amongst thousands, maybe millions of others. P/E ratio is elementary school stuff, if you think you can reliably predict performance based on stuff like this - which everyone else knows as well, rendering the information useless anyway - then you're deluding yourself. It's like thinking you can reliably bet on a horse race by measuring the length of the horse's tail.

This entire thread has been them noobing it up...no talk of betas, dividend policies, NOL carryforwards/carrybacks, EBIT, cash flows & in depth financials analyses, etc. Options= leverage....but they aren't that dangerous if you use them to hedge, not to profit.  Also...wtf does Keynes have anything to do with stocks besides beauty contests?!  By his logic...we should be shorting the crap out of shares that we think other people find value in...which is precisely what these noobs just said was sooo dangerous and only to be handled by professional investors. smh.

[Malphas]

For the record I'm not saying you won't make money dabbling in stocks, it's not a zero sum game and you have to be pretty unlucky and/or stupid to lose money or anything, but your likelihood of reliably beating the market as a whole versus the increased fees, risk of underperforming, time and effort involved mean it isn't worth it unless you just fancy a flutter. Basically in order to actually pick the shares that are going to outperform you need to be able to see something in that company that no-one else has yet, which means you have to be either incredibly talented or an insider trader, otherwise it's just luck, considering there are guys sitting for 12+ hours a day in front of a desk full of monitors trying to do the same thing. It's not as simple as just reading a 10-K and going "gee that sounds like a good company to invest in" and suddenly seeing your portfolio skyrocket, if it was as easy as that then everyone would be quids in.

[swagpiratex]

Whoa, when did this turn into a contest about portfolio theory and advanced accounting concepts? I thought the thread was titled noob to trading?

I'm done with this thread. Have fun guys.

[ferociousfingerings]

Whoa, when did this turn into a contest about portfolio theory and advanced accounting concepts? I thought the thread was titled noob to trading?

I'm done with this thread. Have fun guys.

Without even reading this thread, and only just the previous post, i will say:

That is probably one of the most important lessons for a "trading noob" to learn; there are a plethora of mountains of copiously excessive information... and in order to "reliably" succeed in "trading," one must have extensive knowledge of what works, and why... which i'm sure involves an outrageous amount of reading and obscene time-commitment.

Some people hack security. Some people hack puzzles. Some people hack machines, or even wood.

Some people hack people!

Some people hack money.


Once you know enough about anything, you should be able to "hack" it, and find a way to exploit any opportunity to profit.


TV Commercials and Internet Advertising can be hilariously misleading.

[tp4tissue]

So, say it with me people, STOCKS is GAMBLING... if you're not too stupid to go to a casino, don't be stupid enough to buy stocks in things you have no in depth knowledge of. I refer specifically to options.

It isn't gambling to people like you and I who understand how the financial statements work together, and the implication of each ratio in relation to the metrics they're tied to. Just look at AMZN. They're trading at a P/E ratio of 300x. How long do you expect us to hold that stock before breaking even? But yea, too complicated for most.

You're completely right about the options. I think that no one that hasn't passed the CFA Level I or equivalent should be touching derivatives. That's straight up gambling right there, unless you're privy to inside information.

This is my point with the beauty contest analogy. You really think the P/E ratio is the be-all, end-all of how a stock is going to perform? It's one tiny factor amongst thousands, maybe millions of others. P/E ratio is elementary school stuff, if you think you can reliably predict performance based on stuff like this - which everyone else knows as well, rendering the information useless anyway - then you're deluding yourself. It's like thinking you can reliably bet on a horse race by measuring the length of the horse's tail.

This entire thread has been them noobing it up...no talk of betas, dividend policies, NOL carryforwards/carrybacks, EBIT, cash flows & in depth financials analyses, etc. Options= leverage....but they aren't that dangerous if you use them to hedge, not to profit.  Also...wtf does Keynes have anything to do with stocks besides beauty contests?!  By his logic...we should be shorting the crap out of shares that we think other people find value in...which is precisely what these noobs just said was sooo dangerous and only to be handled by professional investors. smh.

Alright Akimbo, what do YOU suggest?  Put this uber economic prowess to where your mouth is. 

[AKIMbO]

So, say it with me people, STOCKS is GAMBLING... if you're not too stupid to go to a casino, don't be stupid enough to buy stocks in things you have no in depth knowledge of. I refer specifically to options.

It isn't gambling to people like you and I who understand how the financial statements work together, and the implication of each ratio in relation to the metrics they're tied to. Just look at AMZN. They're trading at a P/E ratio of 300x. How long do you expect us to hold that stock before breaking even? But yea, too complicated for most.

You're completely right about the options. I think that no one that hasn't passed the CFA Level I or equivalent should be touching derivatives. That's straight up gambling right there, unless you're privy to inside information.

This is my point with the beauty contest analogy. You really think the P/E ratio is the be-all, end-all of how a stock is going to perform? It's one tiny factor amongst thousands, maybe millions of others. P/E ratio is elementary school stuff, if you think you can reliably predict performance based on stuff like this - which everyone else knows as well, rendering the information useless anyway - then you're deluding yourself. It's like thinking you can reliably bet on a horse race by measuring the length of the horse's tail.

This entire thread has been them noobing it up...no talk of betas, dividend policies, NOL carryforwards/carrybacks, EBIT, cash flows & in depth financials analyses, etc. Options= leverage....but they aren't that dangerous if you use them to hedge, not to profit.  Also...wtf does Keynes have anything to do with stocks besides beauty contests?!  By his logic...we should be shorting the crap out of shares that we think other people find value in...which is precisely what these noobs just said was sooo dangerous and only to be handled by professional investors. smh.

Alright Akimbo, what do YOU suggest?  Put this uber economic prowess to where your mouth is. 

I suggest looking at more than just PE ratios. Like ferociousfingerings said...there's a crap ton of data to look through, the importance of which varies with market conditions.  I commented last night to point out how people have contradicted themselves in this thread several times (re: the evil of options and then propounding a theory of market movement where options provide the best profit).  If boost doesn't have a crap ton of money to invest or the time to really study this stuff to get semi-comfortable with it then he should just invest in mutual funds.  MFs are already hedged...you just need to learn what securities the MF portoflio is comprised of and make sure you don't invest in multiple MFs that have a big overlap of securities. 

[tp4tissue]

So, say it with me people, STOCKS is GAMBLING... if you're not too stupid to go to a casino, don't be stupid enough to buy stocks in things you have no in depth knowledge of. I refer specifically to options.

It isn't gambling to people like you and I who understand how the financial statements work together, and the implication of each ratio in relation to the metrics they're tied to. Just look at AMZN. They're trading at a P/E ratio of 300x. How long do you expect us to hold that stock before breaking even? But yea, too complicated for most.

You're completely right about the options. I think that no one that hasn't passed the CFA Level I or equivalent should be touching derivatives. That's straight up gambling right there, unless you're privy to inside information.

This is my point with the beauty contest analogy. You really think the P/E ratio is the be-all, end-all of how a stock is going to perform? It's one tiny factor amongst thousands, maybe millions of others. P/E ratio is elementary school stuff, if you think you can reliably predict performance based on stuff like this - which everyone else knows as well, rendering the information useless anyway - then you're deluding yourself. It's like thinking you can reliably bet on a horse race by measuring the length of the horse's tail.

This entire thread has been them noobing it up...no talk of betas, dividend policies, NOL carryforwards/carrybacks, EBIT, cash flows & in depth financials analyses, etc. Options= leverage....but they aren't that dangerous if you use them to hedge, not to profit.  Also...wtf does Keynes have anything to do with stocks besides beauty contests?!  By his logic...we should be shorting the crap out of shares that we think other people find value in...which is precisely what these noobs just said was sooo dangerous and only to be handled by professional investors. smh.

Alright Akimbo, what do YOU suggest?  Put this uber economic prowess to where your mouth is. 

I suggest looking at more than just PE ratios. Like ferociousfingerings said...there's a crap ton of data to look through, the importance of which varies with market conditions.  I commented last night to point out how people have contradicted themselves in this thread several times (re: the evil of options and then propounding a theory of market movement where options provide the best profit).  If boost doesn't have a crap ton of money to invest or the time to really study this stuff to get semi-comfortable with it then he should just invest in mutual funds.  MFs are already hedged...you just need to learn what securities the MF portoflio is comprised of and make sure you don't invest in multiple MFs that have a big overlap of securities. 

God, I'm glad you're not handlin' my monies.

Mutual funds??? you really want boost to be poor when he retires, that's hurtful bro.

And the first half of your paragraph is alotta text just to say absolutely nothing.

Yea people need to study,, more than P/E ratio,, beh beh beh


If you're gonna troll, at least google some bigger financial terms.

Most mutual funds will barely clear you from yearly inflation, and they're all run by idiots. and you seem to have it backwards, if he did have lots of money, he might consider a fund, but if it's just his own savings per year, there's no way to effectively yield from a mutual fund.

Take your highschool econ class and get out.  )

[AKIMbO]

^TP....I haven't seen you post one investment strategy, etc.  You can take you "highschool econ" bs and shove it.  Mutual funds are the easiest way to diversify a portfolio.  I <3 U even if you're a bad troll.

[tp4tissue]

^TP....I haven't seen you post one investment strategy, etc.  You can take you "highschool econ" bs and shove it.  Mutual funds are the easiest way to diversify a portfolio.  I <3 U even if you're a bad troll.

Wha.. my very first post was the best strategy for novices..

Trade AMD, INTEL, or APPLE

They have clear and concise competitors, product lines that are avidly watched, and their product performance matters as much as their perceived financial performance.

What have you posted?


I've also mentioned I like AMZN because of the consistency of American Christmas expense.
And I've cautioned the people against new year plays because they're too volatile and full of surprises.

[AKIMbO]

^TP....I haven't seen you post one investment strategy, etc.  You can take you "highschool econ" bs and shove it.  Mutual funds are the easiest way to diversify a portfolio.  I <3 U even if you're a bad troll.

Wha.. my very first post was the best strategy for novices..

Trade AMD, INTEL, or APPLE

They have clear and concise competitors, product lines that are avidly watched, and their product performance matters as much as their perceived financial performance.

What have you posted?


I've also mentioned I like AMZN because of the consistency of American Christmas expense.
And I've cautioned the people against new year plays because they're too volatile and full of surprises.

I've told Boost several hedging strategies to look into (re: covered calls, protective puts, straddles/strangles, zeros to guard against interest rate declines, etc.).

AMD's stock has been taking a nose dive recently...I should know...I'm loosing money on it right now.  Its revolving door of executives isn't helping investor confidence (re: Keynesian beauty contest).  Intel recently reduced expected quarterly earnings so I'm still curious as to its stocks long term movement, but right now is upward trending.  AAPPL I don't follow since its stock is too rich for my blood.

The residential housing market is going to boom/has been booming the last few weeks.  Same with sugar futures....rains in Brazil and India having to import being the cause.  I steer clear of futures based trading though since they are way too speculative and the cost of futures securities means its limited to commercial institutions.  Boost could trade the stock of a company involved in the sugar business though.

Retail should be good for the holiday season like you said. 

Presidential elections also have a historical short term effect on stock prices.  Democractic win causes stocks to tank the next day (so you should short)....Republican win causes stocks to rally the next day (so you should hold a call).     

[tp4tissue]

^TP....I haven't seen you post one investment strategy, etc.  You can take you "highschool econ" bs and shove it.  Mutual funds are the easiest way to diversify a portfolio.  I <3 U even if you're a bad troll.

Wha.. my very first post was the best strategy for novices..

Trade AMD, INTEL, or APPLE

They have clear and concise competitors, product lines that are avidly watched, and their product performance matters as much as their perceived financial performance.

What have you posted?


I've also mentioned I like AMZN because of the consistency of American Christmas expense.
And I've cautioned the people against new year plays because they're too volatile and full of surprises.

I've told Boost several hedging strategies to look into (re: covered calls, protective puts, straddles/strangles, zeros to guard against interest rate declines, etc.).

AMD's stock has been taking a nose dive recently...I should know...I'm loosing money on it right now.  Its revolving door of executives isn't helping investor confidence (re: Keynesian beauty contest).  Intel recently reduced expected quarterly earnings so I'm still curious as to its stocks long term movement, but right now is upward trending.  AAPPL I don't follow since its stock is too rich for my blood.

The residential housing market is going to boom/has been booming the last few weeks.  Same with sugar futures....rains in Brazil and India having to import being the cause.  I steer clear of futures based trading though since they are way too speculative and the cost of futures securities means its limited to commercial institutions.  Boost could trade the stock of a company involved in the sugar business though.

Retail should be good for the holiday season like you said. 

Presidential elections also have a historical short term effect on stock prices.  Democractic win causes stocks to tank the next day (so you should short)....Republican win causes stocks to rally the next day (so you should hold a call).     

-------covered calls, protective puts, straddles/strangles, zeros to guard against interest rate declines, etc.

More, like sure way to fail due to over-manage.

I said trade AMD, this includes short.

Housing? wtf, who still does this...

Sugar Futures?

You people don't even trust the weather man, yet you'll bet on weather and yields.

These are things for millionaires that can take a hit, is Boost that one millionaire who asks for investment advice on a keyboard forum?..


The presidential election thing is a long lived rumor. You can't build a trend from something that would be full of problems with autocorrelation.



Seriously, are you just typing "invest" into google, and making stuff up... or are you watching too much cnbc  )

[AKIMbO]

No google...just a whole lot of this dude....j/k 

[tp4tissue]

Show Image

No google...just a whole lot of this dude....j/k  :p

I swear, that guy is ruining America, little by little

Can't tell you how much I hate diversification