Stocks Anyone?

[hawaii 5-0]

Out of curiosity, why growth stocks? Buy and Hold is typically used with value stocks (ie the Warren Buffett model).

My wife's strategy is also ridiculously effective -> only buy stocks of companies with addictive products. Her ROI on Activision/Blizzard alone (the makers of WoW) is almost 100% in a year.

Maybe 'Growth' is a misnomer.

To me it means an established company that continues to grow, year after year and has almost no chance of folding. That little arrow just keeps getting higher and higher over time regardless of an occasional dip or correction.

Stuff like IBM, General Electric, Coca Cola, Johnson and Johnson, Proctor and Gamble, General Mills to name a handful. Buy 'em, hold 'em, watch 'em grow.....then go out and buy something BIG.

Most speculative stuff I refer to as 'aggressive growth'. Higher risk with potential higher return (as well as a capital loss).


5-0

[8timechamps]

Ok, I can agree with that statement. I was directing that toward the people that actually work at investing their money.

If I remember correctly, you are also in the industry. So, you realize that the vast majority of investors don't work at investing their money. Then, there are the sector of folks that try, but don't realize they are killing themselves on the fees.

If you and I were having a beer, our conversation would be much, much different than my typical conversation with clients.

[hawaii 5-0]

As you all should be able to tell I'm strictly an amateur.

Personally tho, I'm a professional since it's my own real money I'm putting up.


5-0

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Maybe 'Growth' is a misnomer.

To me it means an established company that continues to grow, year after year and has almost no chance of folding. That little arrow just keeps getting higher and higher over time regardless of an occasional dip or correction.

Stuff like IBM, General Electric, Coca Cola, Johnson and Johnson, Proctor and Gamble, General Mills to name a handful. Buy 'em, hold 'em, watch 'em grow.....then go out and buy something BIG.

Most speculative stuff I refer to as 'aggressive growth'. Higher risk with potential higher return (as well as a capital loss).


5-0

Okay, you are basically building your own version of an S&P index fund. I just find that pure holdings of megacaps are frustrating since they fall in proportion to the market, but don't necessarily gain in proportion to the market. This isn't to say that I don't buy them when their P/E ratios get all out of whack with the market (like Energy stocks now with crude oil prices slumping). I just prefer a blend of mid/large cap "undervalued" stocks. One place that I do differ from Mr Buffett is that I get out of hot stocks when they reach a certain level of return.

[Killerbees]

If I remember correctly, you are also in the industry. So, you realize that the vast majority of investors don't work at investing their money. Then, there are the sector of folks that try, but don't realize they are killing themselves on the fees.

If you and I were having a beer, our conversation would be much, much different than my typical conversation with clients.

Fees and taxes. I have seen some horrendous 401K plans that people have no clue they are getting raped by fees. And unless your long term holder or at the opposite end doing 4 or 5 trades nearly every trading day (taking advantage of some tax loopholes for a trading business) then your getting killed by the IRS. I am thinking more and more that retiring early and moving to Singapore where there is no capital gains tax is looking very doable at this point. I have a hard time seeing myself pulling a grindstone for another 20+ years when I could make more over there.

I am not not in the industry, but I still don't give advice to people I know to abandon the buy and hold strategy (I still stand by the fact that this is NOT the best way to invest). That is by far the best way to get consistent returns with minimal input and knowledge. I get asked alot because if they spend any time around me or at my house they know I am heavily involved in trading. I tell them to put in the work and time to learn how to invest or hire someone to invest their money for them....and no I don't mean me, is usually the next sentence.

I am about 60% cash 20% metals and 20% in stocks right now. I have been slowly buying back in but things look really weak at this point. If the market turns in the next few weeks I will be buying puts on certain big stocks that are way too rich right now, thinking of TSLA here. If it doesn't and so long as the developing situation in China cools off then I will go long again more aggressively. I have been heavy cash since end of Jan and in the last 3 weeks bought a few stocks that I had before I sold out. 2 of them are gonna be wash sales because I closed them with small losses.

[8timechamps]

Fees and taxes. I have seen some horrendous 401K plans that people have no clue they are getting raped by fees. And unless your long term holder or at the opposite end doing 4 or 5 trades nearly every trading day (taking advantage of some tax loopholes for a trading business) then your getting killed by the IRS. I am thinking more and more that retiring early and moving to Singapore where there is no capital gains tax is looking very doable at this point. I have a hard time seeing myself pulling a grindstone for another 20+ years when I could make more over there.

I am not not in the industry, but I still don't give advice to people I know to abandon the buy and hold strategy (I still stand by the fact that this is NOT the best way to invest). That is by far the best way to get consistent returns with minimal input and knowledge. I get asked alot because if they spend any time around me or at my house they know I am heavily involved in trading. I tell them to put in the work and time to learn how to invest or hire someone to invest their money for them....and no I don't mean me, is usually the next sentence.

I am about 60% cash 20% metals and 20% in stocks right now. I have been slowly buying back in but things look really weak at this point. If the market turns in the next few weeks I will be buying puts on certain big stocks that are way too rich right now, thinking of TSLA here. If it doesn't and so long as the developing situation in China cools off then I will go long again more aggressively. I have been heavy cash since end of Jan and in the last 3 weeks bought a few stocks that I had before I sold out. 2 of them are gonna be wash sales because I closed them with small losses.

You may not be officially employed in the industry, but you clearly know your ****. 99% of my clients have little to no interest in 'learning'. They all care greatly about their money, but most just feel like learning to invest is like drinking from a fire hose.

TSLA is a very interesting company right now. I have a conference call next week with the CFO (Not directly, he's speaking to hundreds of folks, I'm sure). I have questions about their intermediate term plans for a mid-range product, and possible future plans for a low-end product. I think the company is managed very well, but I'm curious on a few things. Anyway, if I hear anything interesting, I'll post it here.

[Killerbees]

TSLA is a very interesting company right now. I have a conference call next week with the CFO (Not directly, he's speaking to hundreds of folks, I'm sure). I have questions about their intermediate term plans for a mid-range product, and possible future plans for a low-end product. I think the company is managed very well, but I'm curious on a few things. Anyway, if I hear anything interesting, I'll post it here.

I have no problem with Tesla as company or the product they make. I have a problem with them being perceived to be worth even half of what GM is worth. I think they have way overshot their value on pure hype. First they are selling "green" cars in the "luxury" car price range. This market isn't nearly as large as the one GM, Ford, Toyota and etc target. The cost of ownership savings for the average person to step up to into Teslas price range simply aren't there. Their published claims comparing the cost of ownership of a Tesla S model to an average sedan are naive at best. They fail to impute the cost of battery replacement into their "savings". They compare a sedan that gets 22mpg when there are plenty that get 30+. New diesels are beating that by a wide margin. The new passat TDI has an official 45 mpg with many official reviews getting 50+ with tons of owners backing that up. Anyone crunching numbers to see if the outlay is worth stepping up to a Tesla will not see much of a difference when they begin using real world numbers.

Then comes the second reason to buy a Tesla. The "green" factor. Thats great and I am all for reducing waste where possible and minimizing harmful impacts to the environment. These batteries fail in this regard. While the true cost to the environment isn't seen here in the states, a quick web search of lithium and rare metal mining in places like Argentina and China will quickly put a damper on this aspect.

I don't understand how people think they are saving money with a purchase like this. I calculated that unless your getting less than 20 mpg your not saving any significant money, and its much cheaper to drive a sedan getting 30+ mpg around than one of these cars. I used EPA est of .38 KWH per mile, an 85kwh battery, driving 65 mph in normal conditions, 0.12 per Kwh electricity cost, 17,000 battery replacement cost. I can figure it costs about $0.14 a mile to drive around a Tesla S for 14,000 miles a year. If you do more it will cost more because of recharging cycle limits of the battery, less of course you can push it down to $0.12 a mile if you do 10,000 miles a year or less. Those are generous numbers assuming ideal conditions. Colder weather, battery age, faster speeds etc will all drive that cost up. If you get a gas car doing 25 mpg your cost is $0.14 a mile with the current national avg gas price of $3.50. You get a new diesel or high mpg car at 45 mpg your paying around $0.08 a mile.

[Killerbees]

Oh if I had a question for Tesla it would be what do they plan to do with that extra battery capacity at their gigafactory. Now there could be some serious cash there if they could drive down the costs of lithium ion batteries in consumer devices and become the go to source for that. Doubtful that they can slash the costs as much as they claim but still there might be more perceived value.

[8timechamps]

I have no problem with Tesla as company or the product they make. I have a problem with them being perceived to be worth even half of what GM is worth. I think they have way overshot their value on pure hype. First they are selling "green" cars in the "luxury" car price range. This market isn't nearly as large as the one GM, Ford, Toyota and etc target. The cost of ownership savings for the average person to step up to into Teslas price range simply aren't there. Their published claims comparing the cost of ownership of a Tesla S model to an average sedan are naive at best. They fail to impute the cost of battery replacement into their "savings". They compare a sedan that gets 22mpg when there are plenty that get 30+. New diesels are beating that by a wide margin. The new passat TDI has an official 45 mpg with many official reviews getting 50+ with tons of owners backing that up. Anyone crunching numbers to see if the outlay is worth stepping up to a Tesla will not see much of a difference when they begin using real world numbers.

Then comes the second reason to buy a Tesla. The "green" factor. Thats great and I am all for reducing waste where possible and minimizing harmful impacts to the environment. These batteries fail in this regard. While the true cost to the environment isn't seen here in the states, a quick web search of lithium and rare metal mining in places like Argentina and China will quickly put a damper on this aspect.

I don't understand how people think they are saving money with a purchase like this. I calculated that unless your getting less than 20 mpg your not saving any significant money, and its much cheaper to drive a sedan getting 30+ mpg around than one of these cars. I used EPA est of .38 KWH per mile, an 85kwh battery, driving 65 mph in normal conditions, 0.12 per Kwh electricity cost, 17,000 battery replacement cost. I can figure it costs about $0.14 a mile to drive around a Tesla S for 14,000 miles a year. If you do more it will cost more because of recharging cycle limits of the battery, less of course you can push it down to $0.12 a mile if you do 10,000 miles a year or less. Those are generous numbers assuming ideal conditions. Colder weather, battery age, faster speeds etc will all drive that cost up. If you get a gas car doing 25 mpg your cost is $0.14 a mile with the current national avg gas price of $3.50. You get a new diesel or high mpg car at 45 mpg your paying around $0.08 a mile.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. I think Tesla is very over-hyped right now. I think there is a media driven desire for a "green" car, and Tesla fills that void (and brings with it a vanity factor). All of the major manufacturers have similar offerings (or have them in the near-term works), but Tesla seems to be the media darling.

I actually test drove the Model X about two months ago, and while it was nice enough, I wasn't blown away. The salesman kept pushing the "you'll save in the long run" angle, but I have trouble believing the savings would actually be there after the initial outlay. Plus, I drive all over the state, and you really have to plan out your route if you're factoring in charging stations. Colorado has more than most states, but still not nearly as convenient as a gas station. There is also a real issue with performance in cold weather.

Anyway, as a stock goes, I've stayed away, but I do keep an eye on it, although I doubt I'll ever dip my foot in the water.

[Dallasbabe]

i want something that sounds like stocks

[SanJoaquinSooner]

i want something that sounds like stocks

The California man who claimed that he suffered from a 20-month erection after a four-hour ride on his BMW K1100RS motorcycle (similar model pictured above) has had his case dismissed. It seems the court found his claims too hard to believe.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

The California man who claimed that he suffered from a 20-month erection after a four-hour ride on his BMW K1100RS motorcycle (similar model pictured above) has had his lawsuit dismissed. It seems the court found his claims too hard to believe.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

The California man who claimed that he suffered from a 20-month erection after a four-hour ride on his BMW K1100RS motorcycle has had his lawsuit dismissed. It seems the court found his claims too hard to believe.

[Dallasbabe]

do you know how i can find this california man? mongo's 20 second erection is pissin me off

[hawaii 5-0]

I'm glad I took some profits last week before this recent sell off.


5-0

[hawaii 5-0]

Just heard Apple was planning a 7-1 Split soon as well as a $30 Billion stock buyback.

Apparently Apple wants to be part of the DOW and needs to bring its share price more in line with other DOW stocks. Thus the anticipated split due on June 9.

Just sayin'


5-0

[hawaii 5-0]

Next day........

As of this writing Apple is up 42. Major jump.


5-0

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I'm still trying to figure out wtf is going on with Alcoa. I bought it last year as a value stock figuring at some point in the far future that the price of aluminum would go up. I didn't figure it would increase this much in this short amount of time.

[8timechamps]

I'm still trying to figure out wtf is going on with Alcoa. I bought it last year as a value stock figuring at some point in the far future that the price of aluminum would go up. I didn't figure it would increase this much in this short amount of time.

I read a piece on AA about a year ago, and one of things that I remember from the article is that they are much heavier into aerospace than I realized. There were two things that pointed to better performance:

1. NASA cutbacks. Once the private sector started to go "all in" on space programs, the demand increased for aluminium.

2. Airline fleets. Replacement can be cyclical, and the advancement of Airbus has spurred more growth.

So, AA beat their estimate (which would stand to reason), so you got in at the right time.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I read a piece on AA about a year ago, and one of things that I remember from the article is that they are much heavier into aerospace than I realized. There were two things that pointed to better performance:

1. NASA cutbacks. Once the private sector started to go "all in" on space programs, the demand increased for aluminium.

2. Airline fleets. Replacement can be cyclical, and the advancement of Airbus has spurred more growth.

So, AA beat their estimate (which would stand to reason), so you got in at the right time.

AA is the master of first degree price discrimination. They sell the same product at two distinctly different prices (low price to consumer goods, high price to airlines) and get away with it because most of their aluminum alloys are not "aircraft grade". Still, the bottom line on both is the price of aluminum which has been crap and only risen slightly, yet their stock suggests it went through the roof.