Overlords Investment Conclave [OIC] Recruitment Thread

[noxiousdog]

NBR reported last night that Amazon is showing signs of entering the pharmacy marketplace. My "longterm" pick in CVS just gets worse and worse. The funny thing is CVS are already in the delivered meds business but I don't think it's going to matter.

There's more to it than just warehouses and a delivery network. That's not too say Amazon can't do it but they'll have to get into care management, deal with regulatory requirements, and forge relationships with insurers and employers.

That, and their competition wouldn't be CVS/Walgreens, it would be Express Scripts.

[LordMortis]

NBR reported last night that Amazon is showing signs of entering the pharmacy marketplace. My "longterm" pick in CVS just gets worse and worse. The funny thing is CVS are already in the delivered meds business but I don't think it's going to matter.

There's more to it than just warehouses and a delivery network. That's not too say Amazon can't do it but they'll have to get into care management, deal with regulatory requirements, and forge relationships with insurers and employers.

The report stated that they are implementing in other smaller countries now and that historically is what Amazon does for a test market for the US... before throwing billions of dollars at the project. Their power is their warchest.

[LawBeefaroni]

NBR reported last night that Amazon is showing signs of entering the pharmacy marketplace. My "longterm" pick in CVS just gets worse and worse. The funny thing is CVS are already in the delivered meds business but I don't think it's going to matter.

There's more to it than just warehouses and a delivery network. That's not too say Amazon can't do it but they'll have to get into care management, deal with regulatory requirements, and forge relationships with insurers and employers.

The report stated that they are implementing in other smaller countries now and that historically is what Amazon does for a test market for the US... before throwing billions of dollars at the project. Their power is their warchest.

Healthcare in the US is unlike any other country in the world. They may as well test on the moon.

[Carpet_pissr]

NBR reported last night that Amazon is showing signs of entering the pharmacy marketplace. My "longterm" pick in CVS just gets worse and worse. The funny thing is CVS are already in the delivered meds business but I don't think it's going to matter.

There's more to it than just warehouses and a delivery network. That's not too say Amazon can't do it but they'll have to get into care management, deal with regulatory requirements, and forge relationships with insurers and employers.

That, and their competition wouldn't be CVS/Walgreens, it would be Express Scripts.

Doh! I own both! (actually, all three - AMZN, CVS and ESRX). Let's see how ESRX responds today.

[Newcastle]

However, AWS is a big deal. 90% of their operating profits are coming from there and that's growing nicely at just under a 50% clip. What is concerning though, is Gartner is predicting slower growth in the cloud market over the next few years. 18% in 2017 down to 15% in 2020. A nice number, but it means that Amazon can't grow AWS at 50% forever.

I am not a bear on Amazon, but I wouldn't invest in it because I see too many danger signs. Mind you am a neophyte investor. I am by far not against it, I just wouldn't bet on it. I just bought google instead.

1. The earnings rate worries me. I think their PE is some crazy number of about 216 (just checked); googl is 28.3. This from a company that is supposedly slaying all these retail giants. I think that number should be lower. Its great they reinvest in the company, but that worries me.

2. I think they are ripe for competition in the online marketplace. I think Walmart has the chance to compete they have the size, infrastructure and customer base. And that doesnt mean others cant jump in either. I wouldn't be surprised if other competitors emerge.

3. AWS is 50% of their revenue (i think i heard this correctly on CNBC the other day). Google & Microsoft have both made major moves to get into the cloud space. They will take market share and in a serious way. Those are some serious competitors.

That being said they are a crazy unique company a market disruptor and first mover in some senses. They do have a lot of strengths. I just wouldn't put any money into them right now.

[noxiousdog]

I am not a bear on Amazon, but I wouldn't invest in it because I see too many danger signs. Mind you am a neophyte investor. I am by far not against it, I just wouldn't bet on it. I just bought google instead.

Google and Amazon aren't competitors. In fact, my guess is at some point they reach some kind of AI licensing deal. It will depend on if Bezos wants best in class AI or he's willing to settle for good enough.

1. The earnings rate worries me. I think their PE is some crazy number of about 216 (just checked); googl is 28.3. This from a company that is supposedly slaying all these retail giants. I think that number should be lower. Its great they reinvest in the company, but that worries me.

2. I think they are ripe for competition in the online marketplace. I think Walmart has the chance to compete they have the size, infrastructure and customer base. And that doesnt mean others cant jump in either. I wouldn't be surprised if other competitors emerge. [/quote]

Agreed. That is my analysis above as well. Assume retail is worthless.

3. AWS is 50% of their revenue (i think i heard this correctly on CNBC the other day). Google & Microsoft have both made major moves to get into the cloud space. They will take market share and in a serious way. Those are some serious competitors.

They are not. I work with all three companies in a global enterprise business. AWS is a significantly broader product. There are certainly use cases for all three, but AWS has the widest product list with the easiest to use interface and the best integration between products.

That being said they are a crazy unique company a market disruptor and first mover in some senses. They do have a lot of strengths. I just wouldn't put any money into them right now.

Just because a company is great, doesn't mean it's worth it's valuation. It is definitely a rosy scenario to make Amazon worth $467 billion.

FWIW, I agree that google is safer and is a better value.

[LordMortis]

I was just in a class for VMWare 6.5 and there was a suggestion that AWS and VMWare are going to be getting much more friendly with each other (ease of use wise) in the near future and that is going to translate into better cost for AWS customers as idle storage is cheap but computing power is expensive.

[Newcastle]

3. AWS is 50% of their revenue (i think i heard this correctly on CNBC the other day). Google & Microsoft have both made major moves to get into the cloud space. They will take market share and in a serious way. Those are some serious competitors.

They are not. I work with all three companies in a global enterprise business. AWS is a significantly broader product. There are certainly use cases for all three, but AWS has the widest product list with the easiest to use interface and the best integration between products.

That being said they are a crazy unique company a market disruptor and first mover in some senses. They do have a lot of strengths. I just wouldn't put any money into them right now.

Just because a company is great, doesn't mean it's worth it's valuation. It is definitely a rosy scenario to make Amazon worth $467 billion.

FWIW, I agree that google is safer and is a better value.

Thanks for your insight on AWS & their competitors. I dont have any direct first hand experience. So its great to hear yoru first hand experience. I still think the fact that both MSFT and GOOG have gotten into that market is significant. They might not be up to AWS now, but they will catch up. They have the resources, and brains to do such.

[noxiousdog]

Thanks for your insight on AWS & their competitors. I dont have any direct first hand experience. So its great to hear yoru first hand experience. I still think the fact that both MSFT and GOOG have gotten into that market is significant. They might not be up to AWS now, but they will catch up. They have the resources, and brains to do such.

They don't have the same motivation. Microsoft is selling Azure to sell Microsoft products. Google is selling infrastructure. Both are useful. Amazon has a wider net trying (and succeeding imo) in a unified environment where your every Enterprise IT need can be satisfied.

Microsoft's and Google's cloud initiatives will make them a lot of money, but they can't compete with Amazon in this sphere. The caveat is google's AI, but then if googles makes the AI they intend, all bets are off.

[Carpet_pissr]

That being said they are a crazy unique company a market disruptor and first mover in some senses.

Yet you are trying to assess them via traditional metrics (P/E) as if they were not a unique company. Many companies, for different reasons, do not "value" well with P/E. It can be a very misleading metric, and has likely led many retail investors to their doom by relying on it to much.

[LordMortis]

So, aside from my 401k and IRA, I haven't increased anything in like a year, as I have been saving for a car instead. It's weird. Until 2.5 year ago or so, I never had a portfolio. Now, not contributing anything to it makes me feel like I will never get to retire. Like I'm "getting behind". What's terrible, is all my non index picks have preformed so terribly, that my index picks don't even make up for those losses. In this nearly year long boom my CVS, F, FRT and FGP still suffer. I'ma hate to see what they do when market finally gets some elasticity and snaps back a bit. Those four companies, which all looked very strong when I bought them, aren't and then I don't want to jump ship when their this far down. So here I sit, waiting to save enough to put more money in to boring indexes and wondering why I've not taken the plunge on Amazon, Google, Tesla, and Apple.

Lessons (being) learned.

I think I will have enough money saved for a car in about 2 more months. Then it's three more months to rebuild a savings cushion. Then another three months until I should have enough to take an interest in investing again... I hope...

[Zaxxon]

So, aside from my 401k and IRA, I haven't increased anything in like a year, as I have been saving for a car instead. It's weird. Until 2.5 year ago or so, I never had a portfolio. Now, not contributing anything to it makes me feel like I will never get to retire. Like I'm "getting behind". What's terrible, is all my non index picks have preformed so terribly, that my index picks don't even make up for those losses. In this nearly year long boom my CVS, F, FRT and FGP still suffer. I'ma hate to see what they do when market finally gets some elasticity and snaps back a bit. Those four companies, which all looked very strong when I bought them, aren't and then I don't want to jump ship when their this far down. So here I sit, waiting to save enough to put more money in to boring indexes and wondering why I've not taken the plunge on Amazon, Google, Tesla, and Apple

I know it goes against the grain of this thread, but your mistake is picking individual stocks. It's just a losing game long-term. I'm guilty of it, too, and have admittedly had some luck behind TSLA. But I've got a very small % of my portfolio in anything other than forms of index funds.

Put it this way: if your individual picks went to zero, how much pain would that cause you? If you've got to think about it, something's wrong.

YMMV, not investment advice, etc etc.

[pr0ner]

So, aside from my 401k and IRA, I haven't increased anything in like a year, as I have been saving for a car instead. It's weird. Until 2.5 year ago or so, I never had a portfolio. Now, not contributing anything to it makes me feel like I will never get to retire. Like I'm "getting behind". What's terrible, is all my non index picks have preformed so terribly, that my index picks don't even make up for those losses. In this nearly year long boom my CVS, F, FRT and FGP still suffer. I'ma hate to see what they do when market finally gets some elasticity and snaps back a bit. Those four companies, which all looked very strong when I bought them, aren't and then I don't want to jump ship when their this far down. So here I sit, waiting to save enough to put more money in to boring indexes and wondering why I've not taken the plunge on Amazon, Google, Tesla, and Apple

I know it goes against the grain of this thread, but your mistake is picking individual stocks. It's just a losing game long-term. I'm guilty of it, too, and have admittedly had some luck behind TSLA. But I've got a very small % of my portfolio in anything other than forms of index funds.

Put it this way: if your individual picks went to zero, how much pain would that cause you? If you've got to think about it, something's wrong.

YMMV, not investment advice, etc etc.

My entire retirement account is in three different "index" funds via TSP. It's so much easier than anything else.

My non-retirement accounts are a mix of stocks (mostly solid, dividend paying stocks) and mutual funds (one of which is just tied to the NASDAQ). I've missed on a couple stocks, sure, but generally speaking, I've hit on more winners than losers to where I don't fret about individual stocks on the level LM does.

[Pyperkub]

What I found is that sometimes I don't have the right data for fields which I'm not in or don't have good public data.

In the 2008 crash, I knew the real estate market was over-valued, but I was absolutely sure that the Banks would do fine. Better than fine, actually. I took a decent hit on BofA at the time (when it crashed from ~45 to ~6, and then back up to around 15.

I got out and took my lumps, and realized that there was just too much insider info going on in that industry to invest in. I view health care the same way.

However, I did get into Costco then. figured people would flock to bulk/cheaper retail/groceries, and Costco was both more ethical, and more discerning than WalMart. That did work out.

However, I work in tech, and can see some of the trends there. Hence Amazon (mostly for their AWS dominance, but also what they were doing to retail). Ditto SCCO (copper mining - given our appetite for consumer electronics and the fact that people were stealing copper in bulk, I figured it would be good, with a solid dividend). Exxon I've pretty much held on to, since picking up a few extra shares back when peak oil looked like a thing (pre-fracking). both of those last 2 I've got it in my head to dump, but haven't gotten there (though I really thought Exxon would do much better after the Trump win - but I'm being patient there and waiting until 90-100/share and re-evaluate).

After Bush's re-election, I thought, what can I invest in that reflects the change it represented. We saw the Incredibles that weekend, and I bought pixar. Now that money's relatively safe dividend paying disney.

Entertainment and retail are a bit easier to suss out trends than banking and health care - less fraud as well, IMHO (which is what killed my BofA hypothesis).

My retirement accounts are all index funds now (stupid idiots didn't give us that option a few years back however, and I was stuck in some idiotic Fidelity retirement date fund, which pretty much went up and down with the S&P 500, but with far fewer gains and higher management costs than an index.

[LawBeefaroni]

[

I know it goes against the grain of this thread, but your mistake is picking individual stocks.

I wouldn't say it goes against the grain of the thread. Index proxies have been recommended here several times over stock picking. There's just less discussion to be had once you pick an index.

It's just a losing game long-term.

Compared to an index, probably. Net loser? Not always.

Something like 80% of my retirement is in various funds from Ariel, Blackrock, Vanguard, and Fidelity. But that's no fun to talk about.

My biggest non-fund stocks are BA, DIS, DUK, GOOG/L, CVLT, and AMD. AMD is the newest, since around $2.20 but the rest are all at least 5 years. Feel free to check the charts. GOOG/L was pre split. BA started in the $70s, DIS I think my first buy was $36.

Yeah, there were some dogs too. I bet against AMBA and HERO. I was right, but about 5 months too early. I was wrong on INO and NE and am in the process of being wrong on F (bought 100 shares today though).

And then there's the pure speculation. Once you have the index funds and "safe" positions squared away, you can speculate if you can stand the risk. Options are my version.

Here's the thing though. If you put $20k of disposable income into the market and 8 years later it's still just $20k, you did far better than someone who just consumed their way though their $20k. Some advisor will say you lost $14k compared to the S&P but if the lion's share of your cash is in funds, who cares how your fun money does? Chances are you got a bit of an education out of the deal too.

Hell, if you average a 1% expense ratio on the $200k in your IRA, you paid more for their education there.

[Zaxxon]

I don't disagree with any of that.

[LordMortis]

Hell, if you average a 1% expense ratio on the $200k in your IRA, you paid more for their education there.

Grumble grumble grumble. Though, like Pyperkub in the last decade my 401k also opened up to index funds, as opposed to their horrible internal mutual funds, which is where the lions share of my retirement is now and I'm paying them that annual vig for no other reason than to be able to defer my taxes until retirement.

Here's the thing though. If you put $20k of disposable income into the market and 8 years later it's still just $20k

That's what I try to tell myself. Only it depends on how you define disposable. It's not really disposable if it has the goal of shaving time off my retirement age goal.

[Jaymann]

I hear the stock market is due for a major correction/crash. And I am about to come into some significant cash. Where the f can I invest?

[noxiousdog]

That being said they are a crazy unique company a market disruptor and first mover in some senses.

Yet you are trying to assess them via traditional metrics (P/E) as if they were not a unique company. Many companies, for different reasons, do not "value" well with P/E. It can be a very misleading metric, and has likely led many retail investors to their doom by relying on it to much.

That's because like any tool it can be used improperly.

[Newcastle]

That being said they are a crazy unique company a market disruptor and first mover in some senses.

Yet you are trying to assess them via traditional metrics (P/E) as if they were not a unique company. Many companies, for different reasons, do not "value" well with P/E. It can be a very misleading metric, and has likely led many retail investors to their doom by relying on it to much.

Sorry for the delay in responding. I agree, solely using the P/e is not wise. I was using P/E as a way to make a quick point. A few months ago I was digging into both Google & Amazon. I was feeling rich and decided to buy 2 shares of one of their stock. The main reason being is they are the leaders of the market currently (FANG) and i wanted to buy best of breed. So off I went reading the various credit suisse, argus, and other reports that my broker provides and other areas.

I am not going to launch the figures, because I'd have to dig for em. But my takeaway was this, I felt Google was on a much sounder financial footing. Amazon wasn't. I liked Google over Amazon better because they had been kicking ass for years and had a solid defensive moat (youtube, android, search, etc. -and waymo coming up). i didn't feel as if Amazon had that. I was very concerned about Amazon's revenue & cash flow. I felt even though they are a dominant company their should have been more revenues and profits. Google feels like a more solid, safe investment between the two.

I still think Amazon is a fascinating company and serious market disrupter; i am just not going to truly back it. I might buy 1 share just for shits and giggles, but wont put anything significant toward it. I might kick myself 10 years from now, but in the here and now, it makes sense to me.

[Newcastle]

I hear the stock market is due for a major correction/crash. And I am about to come into some significant cash. Where the f can I invest?

Dont bet on it happening. Every time there has been a whiff of a correction, the market has proved to be crazily resilient and has bounced back within a day or two. Its taken some serious hits in the last month since the Trump-russia allegations, but its always bounced back. Part of the thinking is that even if Trump is impeached, you got President Pence to be able to step in and continue the GOP pro-business agenda.

As to where to invest, start doing your homework, start looking into stocks. Open a brokerage account and start looking up companies and read the reports that they offer. Those give some serious details.

Personally, I found that I have learned a lot from watching CNBC religiously. Not for the stocks they suggest, but the why and reasoning they state. (Fast money are the segments 9 am pst. and 2 PM). Record them if you want. I've also found that the first 15 minutes of mad money with cramer (3pm pst) to be instructive for an explanation of the market and what's going on. The other segments are also cool, but if i am in a rush, i'll just record and watch those 10 minute intro. It's just a great way to understand what is going on in the market and the various forces at work.

[LordMortis]

Personally, I found that I have learned a lot from watching CNBC religiously. Not for the stocks they suggest, but the why and reasoning they state. (Fast money are the segments 9 am pst. and 2 PM). Record them if you want. I've also found that the first 15 minutes of mad money with cramer (3pm pst) to be instructive for an explanation of the market and what's going on. The other segments are also cool, but if i am in a rush, i'll just record and watch those 10 minute intro. It's just a great way to understand what is going on in the market and the various forces at work.

CNBC put together Nightly Business Reports on PBS, which I think is the best news show out there. I don't have the hour to give every night but I should. It's both a talk of what is going on in the investment world and major news with and apolitical bias. The bias of presentation is strictly news that's important to the investor.

[Pyperkub]

I hear the stock market is due for a major correction/crash. And I am about to come into some significant cash. Where the f can I invest?

The worst case scenario:

In nearly 90 years of market history, if you bought stocks on the absolute worst day, the average time to make your money back was 3 years. That's less time than it takes most people to get through high school or college. It's doable. It shouldn't make you shy away from investing in stocks...

... The big crashes: Take the 2008 financial crisis. If you got in at the peak, it would have taken 5.5 years to recoup your money.

Want to feel even gloomier: If you invested the day before the 1929 crash, it would have taken you 25 years to be back in the positive. That's a long time, even for a "long-term investor."

But before you decide to exit stocks, remember that in 90 years of stock market history, only the Great Depression took longer than a decade to recoup your money. And only four times did it take longer than 5 years to get back to gains.

[Daehawk]

14 or so years ago or so..not sure...Amazon stock was like $35 a share...today it like $1000.

[coopasonic]

I hear the stock market is due for a major correction/crash. And I am about to come into some significant cash. Where the f can I invest?

The worst case scenario:

In nearly 90 years of market history, if you bought stocks on the absolute worst day, the average time to make your money back was 3 years. That's less time than it takes most people to get through high school or college. It's doable. It shouldn't make you shy away from investing in stocks...

... The big crashes: Take the 2008 financial crisis. If you got in at the peak, it would have taken 5.5 years to recoup your money.

Want to feel even gloomier: If you invested the day before the 1929 crash, it would have taken you 25 years to be back in the positive. That's a long time, even for a "long-term investor."

But before you decide to exit stocks, remember that in 90 years of stock market history, only the Great Depression took longer than a decade to recoup your money. And only four times did it take longer than 5 years to get back to gains.

Unless you are my wife... then you wait until rock bottom and then move your money somewhere safe and completely miss the recovery.

On my end, I am looking forward to another incredible buying opportunity.

[Isgrimnur]

Dropped some money into XAR (SPDR SERIES TRUST S&P AEROSPACE & DEFENSE ETF) this week. I'm hoping that the industry is in for some salad days, what with the new tanker, drone fighter swarms, the Navy already talking about the F-35 successor, and the OA-X to replace the A-10.

[noxiousdog]

Dont bet on it happening. Every time there has been a whiff of a correction, the market has proved to be crazily resilient and has bounced back within a day or two. Its taken some serious hits in the last month since the Trump-russia allegations, but its always bounced back. Part of the thinking is that even if Trump is impeached, you got President Pence to be able to step in and continue the GOP pro-business agenda.

That is some serious short term thinking.

As to where to invest, start doing your homework, start looking into stocks. Open a brokerage account and start looking up companies and read the reports that they offer. Those give some serious details.

You can get a really good education going through 10-Ks.

Personally, I found that I have learned a lot from watching CNBC religiously. Not for the stocks they suggest, but the why and reasoning they state. (Fast money are the segments 9 am pst. and 2 PM). Record them if you want. I've also found that the first 15 minutes of mad money with cramer (3pm pst) to be instructive for an explanation of the market and what's going on. The other segments are also cool, but if i am in a rush, i'll just record and watch those 10 minute intro. It's just a great way to understand what is going on in the market and the various forces at work.

This is not good advice. CNBC and other 24 hour television is like watching ESPN. They are worried about he scoreboard, not fundamentals. Watch how many times they talk about streaks, or highest since last month! If Cramer was so smart, he'd make WAY more doing than talking. That being said, it is still entertaining.

The single best, and easiest, thing you can to is go to read Warren Buffett's annual reports. There is a ton of good information in there.

The single best hard thing you can do is get a copy of Benjamin Graham's Security Analysis.

I'm fine with people choosing technical analysis or momentum or any other stock pseudoscience, but, only once they understand fundamentals.

[Zaxxon]

I second reading Buffett.

[Newcastle]

Dont bet on it happening. Every time there has been a whiff of a correction, the market has proved to be crazily resilient and has bounced back within a day or two. Its taken some serious hits in the last month since the Trump-russia allegations, but its always bounced back. Part of the thinking is that even if Trump is impeached, you got President Pence to be able to step in and continue the GOP pro-business agenda.

That is some serious short term thinking.

Agreed. Specifically a 15-17 month horizon. The GOP controls all levers of power. So it’s gonna be a very pro-business agenda. Hence these bounce backs that we are seeing after some crazy news days. But, that agenda is stalling due to Trump’s Russia’s troubles and that is sucking their limited time away to do anything policy related.

Does that mean a crash could still happen, sure. The economic data is not robust, I think business investment was down just recently. I worry about wages. Elements are there.

This is not good advice. CNBC and other 24 hour television is like watching ESPN. They are worried about he scoreboard, not fundamentals. Watch how many times they talk about streaks, or highest since last month! If Cramer was so smart, he'd make WAY more doing than talking. That being said, it is still entertaining.

[/quote][/quote]

In terms of the CNBC. Specifically its 3 shows (Halftime report 9 am PST, Fast Money 2P PST, and Mad Money at 3PM PST).

The first two I find really interesting because you have a bunch of “traders” and fund managers battering around stocks and discussing the why’s of them. I find these to be interesting and instructive, again in terms of how and why a stock is doing. That is interesting and informative to me. Also they point out underlying reasons for a trade that I hadn’t thought of. So it’s great listening to their investment thesis on a stock and the level of detail, I should think about.

IE (– I bought Scotts (fertilizer and other gardening things) because there is a growing Marijuana movement in the states to legalize. Scotts is in a position to capitalize because of x, y, z. (I forgot the specifics).

I never bought Scotts, but I found it interesting in hearing the why’s they bought that stock.


Mad Money – its the first 10 minutes of his show which I find compelling. When he starts into his mini lightning round, I generally turn it off. But, he dissects the trading day and makes correlations about what’s going on. And goes in areas which I hadn’t thought of. He might talk about how Oil is down and how that effects say the transport industry.
I feel as if I pick up quite a bit from those 10 minutes. A few things I picked up from him:

-he might talk about how a hedge fund manager seeing the quarter is coming to an end, starts deciding to take profits for their clients. And that forces a stock to go down. (ie multiple managers are acting simulteously (not colluding) to lock in profits). Even though the stock is kicking ass all of a sudden it goes down; this could be a reason.

-or insider buying/selling. Its not enough for the CEO to buy shares of a stock, but when 7 VP do so of a company, then that interests him. Because those folks have to lock in those shares for 6 months. So if a lot of company insiders are buying stocks, something is up and they are bullish about the future.

Taking this advice, I’ve used it when researching a stock; (For an example of this, check UnderArmor around March- April, quite a few of their executives bought shares). UA is a company I am watching, despite the struggles in retail and the athletic leisure ware company and despite their low revenues and such. Not gonna buy it, but I am interested in it.

A counter example is AMD, Lisa Su the CEO, sold a boatload of stocks May 10. I own AMD, should I be concerned?

- he also stresses do your homework & research; which is an obvious one.

The things I pick up from watching those 10 minutes, again I find instructive and help me understand what’s going on. For me, who doesn’t have years of experience on Wall Street or trading, I think it’s a decent introduction into the thinking and concepts I had no clue about.

I am actually in the middle of a Peter Lynch book on Wall Street. I have Buffet’s books on corporate letters on deck as my next economic book to read. Thanks for the link to the letters.

-One thing I haven’t seen mentioned is Seeking Alpha. I also find that helpful to read the bull & bearish cases for individual stocks.

Should these be your end all and be all, absolutely not. But for me, they are very informative in terms of how to think about the stocks themselves. You still have to do your work and really look into a stock. And that’s what I do. I find it to be a fun endeavor to research a stock, diving into the data to figure out if its something I want to track and then maybe by.

Much obliged on the responses ND. I guess I should apologize also for just jumping in this thread as well and spewing, feel like the young kid at the adults table.

[LordMortis]

, feel like the young kid at the adults table.

You and me both but it interests me and I need to learn. And most specifically I need to learn to read and retain numbers related to finance that do not involve my personal income and spending. Balance sheets and 100 page reports on explaining them are just like reading text books in middle school... which I never did. I just couldn't get through them.

[noxiousdog]

Newcastle,

There are certainly things you can pick up, but understand that those shows are like con men. Everything they say is built to make you want to listen to them. They are almost exactly like the football gambling guys. They can tell you all sorts of reasons that sound great, but in the end they are trying to make money off you; not the market.

[Newcastle]

Newcastle,

There are certainly things you can pick up, but understand that those shows are like con men. Everything they say is built to make you want to listen to them. They are almost exactly like the football gambling guys. They can tell you all sorts of reasons that sound great, but in the end they are trying to make money off you; not the market.

I'll keep that in mind when I watch Mad Money this afternoon.

Sorry that sounds more snippy than I wanted it to. I understand what you're saying, and its not as if I am off buying everything they recommend (only have 4 stocks in my portfolio and dont plan on adding atm). Sometimes they throw some things out there that make me scratch my head.

Also, when they do make recommendations, there's usually a blurb that follows indicating their "holdings" so you, as the reader, can see if they hold that stock. I check those out when those pop up to see where they are coming from. Sure they have those positions, and i get that.

But i make up my own mind. I've never bought a stock because X person recommended it. I might buy a stock they mention AFTER i have done my extensive research and i have a good idea what i am getting into. (fyi, i have not as of yet).

But, again i come back to this, how they talk about things, threats coming up on certain stocks, that is valuable to me.

[Pyperkub]

Agreed. Specifically a 15-17 month horizon. The GOP controls all levers of power. So it’s gonna be a very pro-business agenda. Hence these bounce backs that we are seeing after some crazy news days. But, that agenda is stalling due to Trump’s Russia’s troubles and that is sucking their limited time away to do anything policy related.

Does that mean a crash could still happen, sure. The economic data is not robust, I think business investment was down just recently. I worry about wages. Elements are there.

It can be a very pro-business agenda, but it actually has been a key factor in the past 2 dips/crashes.

1. Lax oversight => fraud, piling on top of fraud, until the house of cards collapses.
2. (mature) Markets actually do better with some regulation, IMHO (though I believe the data over the past 20+ years has borne this out). Think referees in sports. The drive to profit is best done through monopoly/monopsony, but it is bad for the market as a whole.
a) Immature markets do need less regulation so that they have time to grow and mature and reach an equilibrium, but they do need some regulation in order to avoid fraudulent market manipulation.
3. A pro-business agenda which exacerbates income inequality will actually harm the markets (less consumers with less money equals less paying customers - there's a reason Henry Ford paid his employees well - he wanted them to be able to buy his cars).

In other words, expect the market to overheat and crash, leaving it (another mess) to be cleaned up by the next Democrat in office.

[Isgrimnur]

Never discount the psychological factor. When enough people at the economic levers decide that we are truly due for a crash, they will take actions that end up precipitating it.

The drumbeat was obvious in retrospect to me in 1999, and I heard it early enough in 2007 to make sure i finally got out of my college town before it hit.

[noxiousdog]

I'm pretty this time will be rising interest rates, and they aren't that far away.

Currently everyone you hear that says the stock market isn't over valued has the unspoken caveat of "while interest rates are this low." It makes investment easier and it makes bonds and cash even worse options than a high multiple stock market.

The best way to look at it is instead of using P/E, invert it and use it as earnings yield.

Therefore a P/E of 15 is an earnings yield of 6.6%. That's great when AA bonds are yielding < 1%. That's not so great when they yield 5%.

[Pyperkub]

Amazon looks like it will close in the quadruple digits today.

[Pyperkub]

And in Disney news:

Just how much money is on the line? BPI is claiming actual damages as high as $1.9 billion, and under South Dakota’s Agricultural Food Products Disparagement Act, there's the possibility of trebled statutory damages, bringing the potential verdict to $5.7 billion (which doesn't even include the possibility of punitive damages). It's a sum so great that The Walt Disney Co., parent of ABC, has included this lawsuit — and no other lawsuit — in 10-Q reports to shareholders filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission. That means Disney sees the outcome as potentially "material" to its bottom line. But maybe $5.7 billion lacks concrete associative value, so consider that the amount is equivalent to roughly nine months of Disney's broadcast revenue. Or seen another way, if BPI did manage to score just half of the damages being claimed, it could buy up all the stock in The New York Times Co. (market cap: $2.8 billion at present) notwithstanding the poor wisdom of investing in a media outlet upon a judgment like this.

[Isgrimnur]

This is the pink slime case against ABC News, for those that aren't link followers.

[LordMortis]

As this has become the Amazon thread.

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/breaking- ... 7-billion/

It's been a long time since I've made any purchases. I can almost pay for a new car but now I'm feeling like I don't want to part with around a year's worth of savings to buy a car and I'm debating 1) putting money in the market and 2) dropping what it takes to keep my car in running shape another couple of years.

If the market continues to dip, I may find myself expanding my VTI position out of my car savings. It's hard to feel like my retirement savings is stagnating. I figure I have about five days to decide if I want to get in before the next dividend payment for that tiny extra boost.

[malchior]

I was a little shocked by the Whole Foods purchase. I expected Amazon to expand their at-home delivery service only. This however may be a synergistic play where they get an in-place grocery chain with strategic locations *and* a logistics network for food delivery. They might even be able to drive some value by optimizing that network with other capabilities. And Whole Foods was vulnerable which makes this potentially all the more brilliant.