Best and worst stock picks

1. You should take dividends into consideration (unless it is too much work or complicated for a non-finance forum to do) because it has a potentially significant impact on the returns and often is a deciding factor when buying.

2. I wonder what would've happened in real life had they bought those shares. The guys heavy into the goldmines would've sold long ago and not held onto them. They would've shown very huge gains.
 
And this is why you don't just listen to "guests". Many of those stocks are ones you should get rid of as soon as they lose 10%. Or how many of them were in the green at some point? Using a fixed time line doesn't give any indication if they were good picks or not.
 
Chevron said:
If you add the numbers together it doesn't match the growth numbers, so obviously price changes.
Click to expand...

Well then it's a bit silly as there is no real indication of value or performance.

And the added numbers being added together make even less sense as a simple average of adding them together and dividing.

If a stock of 100 cents went up by 10c that's a major cash in.

A stock of 10,000 cents goes up 10c it means nothing.

Same goes for the ones that are "worst". If they paid dividends they might not have done so badly at all.
 
Last edited:
Swa said:
And this is why you don't just listen to "guests". Many of those stocks are ones you should get rid of as soon as they lose 10%. Or how many of them were in the green at some point? Using a fixed time line doesn't give any indication if they were good picks or not.
Click to expand...

I really don't want to go down this road again but it's relevant.

Once again it's the difference between a trader (who constantly watches the market) and an investor that makes a big buy and looks at it 12-months down the line and decides to buy more, stay where they are or get rid of it.

It's the long game.

I agree with your underlying point that they could have been sky high at some point, but there no indication of a healthy company really.
 
SauRoNZA said:
I really don't want to go down this road again but it's relevant.

Once again it's the difference between a trader (who constantly watches the market) and an investor that makes a big buy and looks at it 12-months down the line and decides to buy more, stay where they are or get rid of it.

It's the long game.

I agree with your underlying point that they could have been sky high at some point, but there no indication of a healthy company really.
Click to expand...
12 months is considered trading.
 
Swa said:
And this is why you don't just listen to "guests". Many of those stocks are ones you should get rid of as soon as they lose 10%. Or how many of them were in the green at some point? Using a fixed time line doesn't give any indication if they were good picks or not.
Click to expand...

Well, they knew their timeline when they picked them. The exercise is interesting none the less.
 
Thor187 said:
12 months is considered trading.
Click to expand...

Let's not go there.

If they get out or planned to get in and out in that period sure.

I was illustrating why the long term average is relevant as bizarrely miscalculated as it is.
 
SauRoNZA said:
Let's not go there.

If they get out or planned to get in and out in that period sure.

I was illustrating why the long term average is relevant as bizarrely miscalculated as it is.
Click to expand...
I'm just pulling your leg @SauRoNZA I know what you mean.
 
Chevron said:
If you add the numbers together it doesn't match the growth numbers, so obviously price changes.
Click to expand...

Then this whole thing is meaningless. Not to mention disregarding dividends as well.

What a BS article.
 
Knyro said:
Then this whole thing is meaningless. Not to mention disregarding dividends as well.

What a BS article.
Click to expand...

The growth number is the two together divided by two for an average.

But even then it's silly to measure growth on share price as I pointed out above.
 
SauRoNZA said:
I really don't want to go down this road again but it's relevant.

Once again it's the difference between a trader (who constantly watches the market) and an investor that makes a big buy and looks at it 12-months down the line and decides to buy more, stay where they are or get rid of it.

It's the long game.

I agree with your underlying point that they could have been sky high at some point, but there no indication of a healthy company really.
Click to expand...
No an investor doesn't leave a stock for 12 months and go, look I've made a profit or lost, only an idiot does that. I've linked the articles with differing views than yours. Strangely these are ignored and you act like it's only my view. There is only a difference in smart and dumb investor. At the end of the day the debate over investor vs trader is an irrelevant one distracting from the point. A smart investor won't leave a stock without at least looking at it once a day. Neither will they go in without knowing what they expect to get.

This is a useless article. Buying a stock and then holding it to sell in a year is no different than gambling.
 
Swa said:
No an investor doesn't leave a stock for 12 months and go, look I've made a profit or lost, only an idiot does that. I've linked the articles with differing views than yours. Strangely these are ignored and you act like it's only my view. There is only a difference in smart and dumb investor. At the end of the day the debate over investor vs trader is an irrelevant one distracting from the point. A smart investor won't leave a stock without at least looking at it once a day. Neither will they go in without knowing what they expect to get.

This is a useless article. Buying a stock and then holding it to sell in a year is no different than gambling.
Click to expand...

Long game.

Extend the period to 10 or 20 years.

Then looking at it twice a year becomes more like looking at it once a day.

The article is useless. I agree.

Anyway the point isn't that someone only looks at it once a year. Just that some don't track it daily and therefore a yearly average is more relevant to them.

Especially the types who use these firms and have handed over their money for them to manage. They never look at it unless told to do so.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X