This is why most people don't do well in the market. They don't understand how to research and understand acquisition strategies.

This is why Webb does well in the market. He researches and understands stock valuations.

In the mid-80's, GE bought RCA. It was one of the largest acquisitions ever (at the time). Lots of speculation on GE "stupidity" as there was "no way" it was worth what they paid. Many speculated that they only wanted NBC back (interestingly, this is the only real asset they still own). Shrew packaging of RCA and GE businesses, some government donation for huge tax breaks, and some fortunate timing and the wise investor realized GE made a fortune and in effect got NBC for free.

lmao... FYI:
• iPhone was released 5 years, 7 months, and 19 days after iPod.
• iPad was released 2 years, 9 months, and 5 days after iPhone.
• Tim Cook has been Apple CEO for 2 years, 5 months, and 11 days.

Those who are more risk-adverse can invest in a mutual fund that carries a proportion of APPL or fast-food, whatever your investment interests are. Rely on the research the fund managers provide.

Sherwood

And then more often than not you'll fail to beat the indexes.

It's legalized gambling. Even very smart, super experienced fund managers who have teams of researchers usually don't beat whatever the broad indexes (i.e., the level of the markets in general) are doing.

For minimal risk, put your money in a money market fund, a savings account or a checking account. I think most pay almost 1%. There's also your bed mattress.

Sherwood

More often than not, yes if you pick a fund manager at random. But you should no more pick a fund or fund manager at random than you should pick stocks at random.

Sherwood gave good advice for an actively managed fund. The other factor is expenses - you always pay expenses, even when the value of the fund falls. The way to solve the problem is to buy a fund [1] run by a good manager, that [2] charges low expenses.

for [2] you buy a Vanguard or Fidelity fund

for [1] you either subscribe to a newsletter telling you what funds to buy in each of the two families; or (to use Super-Bong Bowl parlance) "roll your own" by looking at the newsletter ratings compiled by Mark Hurlbert.

Indiv. stocks should be left to a smaller, less secure portion of your portfolio - I look at mine as "play money" (tho a friend wants me to use options like he does).

For more discussion search OT for "Vanguard" - there are several threads, some with discussion between me and Paul Donkin, aka "Mustang Paulie" who favors index funds. We agree on Vanguard. Index funds are easier and are not far behind the best actively managed fund portfolios over long time periods.

How is buying a mutual fund legalized gambling? I think I'm missing the analogy.

I've never understood the concept of buy the index fund because they beat most managed funds. That's like saying race a Mustang because it's faster than most cars. I'd say buy the GT2 because it is faster than the Mustang. It's not that hard to find a fund manger with a track record of consistently outperforming the indexes.

Umm not sure how to tell you this but Comcast owns nbc.

They don't say "past performance does not guarantee future results" for nuthin.

But I've been around long enough to know that everyone on PPOT is a stock market genius.

I remember quite well when many people here said you'd have to be an "idiot" to not be able to pick stocks and consistently get returns, over the long haul, of at least 25% per year.

you don't have to be a genius - you just research who the best people are and hire them

or buy an index fund from Vanguard - simple, easy

Wall Street Is A Rentier Rip-Off: Index Funds Beat 99.6% Of Managers Over Ten Years | Zero Hedge

Almost no one can beat the market - Howard Gold's No-Nonsense Investing - MarketWatch


Certainly, one can find a mutual fund that will beat the market over a select period of time, but it's much harder to find one that outperforms over the long-term. Certainly, one could jump to the newest, hot manager who will beat the market in the future, but if one possess the clairvoyance, why not select individual stocks, instead?

Honestly, who has actually bought an actively managed fund that has beaten the index over the last 10 or 20 years? I'd like to know how you selected that fund, and how will you find the next super-manager.

You can call me old fashioned but the more there is a person or reputable company associated with an investment the better. If there was a complete melt down of the the US financial system then I think the following the would be the safest to least safe. Feel free to challenge me!

Physical gold as in coins and bars.
Currency - what country?
Share certificates as in the actual paper certs.
Mutual funds with good companies such as Fidelity, Vanguard etc
Index funds not so much because if there was a meltdown then the underlying investments are not readily identified.

As the above mentioned I would own Apple only in a mutual fund. Too risky otherwise. If you look at the various mutual funds and see what they have invested in I think that would give an idea of solid safe stocks. I am getting away from picking individual stocks. I leave it to the professionals.....G:)

How about sharing what a couple of these funds are if you don't mind? Show me something "good" (better than what I've been doing the past 15 years or so) and I'll jump at it ;). First half of my corporate career was with two of the largest banks (one now managed out of existence) with stellar "wealth management" divisions. Their fund performances were "OK at best", but certainly nothing a prudent, analytical investor can't surpass with a bit of diligence.

Not EVERYONE...remember back when you were an "article"...many were real estate tycoons on that classic thread :D

Hey, welcome back Jurgen!!! Long time no see....hope life is grand for ya!

Wow, it's Throwback Monday! Real estate tycooons/"Real Estate Prices Never Go Down" and turbo6bar on the same page.

Nice!

(P.S. yeah, welcome back Jurgen)

Anyone had a chance to invest in companies like Google and Facebook a couple of years ago......if you want to pick two to track. As they say, buy low and sell high.

As for APPL. It was kind of the favorite for portfolio managers. Think of the results when a stock consistently rebounds 10 pts after a similar dip a few days earlier. Multiple that by 100 shares repeated for several investors.

I suggest to my kids to select some stocks for kicks as if they had money invested and see how that goes. It gets them (I hope) interested in how the market works and how seemingly random events affect the market. I know. It baffles me too.

However, as it's been stated repeatedly on this thread, there's a risk in any investment whether buying stock or loaning money to a relative for a business scheme. One can play it safe and deposit funds in a federally insured bank or hide it in a tin can. For many Americans, having money to save is sometimes a struggle. But if possible, try to save some instead of living large now, a concept lost on many able-bodied citizens.

Many investors do okay, better or meh in the stock market. Not sure why some here would discourage others who have the funds, knowledge, interest and patience to try it, maybe the same ones who think nothing of gambling trips to Vegas or Atlantic City, play poker, bet on horse races or SuperBowl games or hope their restored ______ (insert favorite vehicle) creates a large ROI at auction, eBay, etc.

Sherwood

I can't do it over the long haul, but I did better than 25% in 2013. My favorite fund did 33.80% Westwood SMidCap Fund Institutional Class WHGMX

You'd have to be an idiot not to be able to get 25% in 2013 ;)
J/K, but 20% should have been pretty darned easy.



2013 performance
DJ Industrial Average up 16.07
NASDAQ Composite up 30.61
NYSE Composite up 12.20
Russell 2000 up 27.03
S&P 500 up 21.52
S&P MidCap 400 up 21.87


PS I got a feeling that 2014 is gonna be a whole different story, 5% will prolly look pretty good this time next year.

I have - your other questions were previously explained

I'm not gonna lie, I think I'm chubbing up a little...

I remember Mark Hulbert and his columns on Marketwatch. Here's an interesting article he wrote this past fall: Hulbert on Investing: Can You Beat the Market? - WSJ.com

As McLovin says, looking at newsletters that point out last year's winners is a sucker's game.

I ask, once again, who has beat the index over the long-term? How did you select those stocks or managers? Who here actually invested with the hot stock or manager and what pointed you in that direction?

Knowing the hot managers is great, but they won't stay hot forever. How do we find the next winner?

Cheers,
Jurgen

I don't get it either....I wonder if they do all the work on their Porsches or simply write a check to a pro? I do think that "most" posting on these threads have a bit of fiscal common sense however (sorely lacking in the masses)...living within one's means, saving along the way, etc. Why do I take charge of my own investing (after a couple of decades of using the "pros")? It's quite simple....'cause I want to :D. I truly don't worry about "beating the pros" etc. (though I have no complaints). It's never, ever, been "all about the money" for me (I just don't tick like that). To me, it's like working on my 911. No one cares more about my car (or MY investments) than I do, and though I may not be a John Walker or a Warren Buffet, I just like to "call my own shots", and I'm quite comfortable with the results...YMMV.

you subscribe to a newsletter that finds the best managers - and over many years, not just 1 year

- Like I said do a search here for more info - if you are too lazy, then you get what you sow

This article may provide some stock tips and trends while also citing some historical stock values for comparison (e.g Amazon.com).

Will eBay

Economics isn't a science. Too many variables after the basics.

Sherwood

As a former institutional trader I have enjoyed reading this thread on and off for a while.

The same debates go on in all circles, meaning I see similar threads on other forums I subscribe to.

There are some "givens" or very close to it. Fund managers are not going to consistently outperform the SanP 500, and past performance is surely not a guarantee of future performance.

The rest is up to you but keep a couple things in mind. What is your goal? What is your time horizon? With those two in mind figure out your risk tolerance.

The interesting thing about the modern markets... and to me "modern" started about 10 years ago with the proliferation of ETF's and derivatives on ETF's... the byproduct of which is measurably lower volatility in the market. Look at a 20 year chart of the VIX (SandP 500 VIX). What passes for high volatility these days was considered pretty low 7 to 10 years ago. There are so many more layers in which institutions can hedge or lay off risk now, that the overall risk in the market has become diluted.

I am not a stock picker, at least not a very good one, I have never had to be. I own about a dozen individual names but for the most part I am not in them because of my own research. I chose them because of my ties to the company or institutions who I maintain a relationship with are deep into them. Other than that as far as equities, I am in a number of ETF’s.
Having been a derivatives trader for 20 years I still have a large % of my net liq in a portfolio which is basically a series of options plays with either ETF’s or Futures as the underlying and hedge.

Apple buys back $14 billion of shares in two weeks since results... Apple buys back $14 billion of shares in two weeks since results - Yahoo Finance

FWIW, I bought a 5s, so stock should go up as soon as it hits the quarterly results. :D

Living in the Bay Area, I appreciate what a large US employer Apple is, regardless of the China based manufacturing, and they definitely have the Koreans beat in that respect. I also appreciate their workmanship and design, after handling every phone in the store.

G

Apple just procured enough Sapphire Crystal furnaces to make 100-200M ~5-inch iPhone displays in Arizona | 9to5Mac

They just moved Mac Pro manufacturing back to the US. The company doesn't seem to get much credit for doing this.

'Dear climate-change deniers, please don’t buy shares in APPLE'...

Tim Cook explains how anyone skeptical of AGW should go away from Apple. ...and Apple doesn't care about profit.

Luck for him that Apple doesn't sell disposable tech built in the least environmentally friendly country. ...oh wait. Hey LOOK - they are designed in California! ...pay no attention to that steady plume behind the ocean.

Seriously, this is NOT a good sign for AAPL.

lmao...;)

AAPL bashers are the new fanboys. I chuckle every time a basher insists the sky is falling.

If you object to a corporation to have humanitarian goals and not concentrate solely on the bottom line, that's up to you and your investment dollars.

If you have no objection to corporations whose business strategy is solely about the return on investment (ROI), then you have a large group of other investment choices.

Apple has a strong voice, but only indirect control as to the business practices of a vendor with the size of a FoxConn (Taiwan), whose customer list includes Apple as well as other companies, some of which you may have heard of:

• Acer Inc. (Taiwan)
• Amazon.com (United States)
• Apple Inc. (United States)
• BlackBerry Ltd. (Canada)
• Cisco (United States)
• Dell (United States)
• Google (United States)
• Hewlett-Packard (United States)
• Microsoft (United States)
• Motorola Mobility (United States)
• Nintendo (Japan)
• Nokia (Finland)
• Sony (Japan)
• Toshiba (Japan)
• Vizio (United States)
• Micromax Mobile (India)
Foxconn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let us know about the bottom line policies of the other companies on the above list.

The following link might help investors choose corporations whose policies are more in line with their sensibilities, not that they all adhere to their official statements:
Business & Human Rights : Policies

Of equal value could be the corporations absent on that list (yeah, APPL isn't on the list). And since this is an automotive-related forum, see how many auto manufacturers are on the above list, US-based and otherwise.

Sherwood

He is an iHater.

Some investors are clearly worried that the growth is going to weaken going forward.

The first sign of trouble was when this internet thread was started. The second thing was the quick dive in its share price (now recovered to down only $174/share).

AAPL has lost 25% of its value since the Sept, 2012 high while its free cash flow has also decreased in the last 12 months.

Oh, I agree. -laughable that they are not profit motivated.

Here is what the CEO said: “If you want me to do things only for ROI [return on investment] reasons, you should get out of this stock.”.... “When we work on making our devices accessible to the blind, I don’t consider bloody ROI.” ...I? hmmm... Really? ...not even for PR?

What this reinforce, in my mind, is that Apple has more money than they know what to do with. --Really, it is completely ridiculous. - like giving the kids on the corner lemonade stand 500 million dollars to grow their business. ...cover more street corners.

I did see that Apple was buying back stock. Maybe they would like to buy at a lower price. I dunno. Sure seems to me that a CEO going out of his way to insult both buyers and investors is not smart. ...Yes, I know, his insults will reinforce the feel-good of the anti-conspicuous-consumption crowd who hate polluters. . .and paradoxically buy and invest in disposable electronics. But this just opens an unnecessary can of worms. - Why?

PS, my above link was on the highly viewed Drudge report (yesterday & today; up high). - thought you AAPL fan-boys would like to know.

Why? Because most buyers of Apple products are normal humans, not climate deniers.

Many want their money to go to support businesses who don't pollute, operate sweatshops, etc.

No Apple is not perfect.

I swear, like religious zealots... Look, NO ONE denies that climate changes.

If your AGW is so righteous and correct, why then the ridiculous campaign of re-labeling AGW skeptics something as ridiculous as "climate deniers." ?

All that the AGW skeptics are saying is "You CO2 Pollyannas seem to be confused about the sky falling. - it hasn't. 2014 and -contrary to the dire predictions- we still see a little winter snow. The ice caps are fine.. And you CO2 Pollyannas have had decades to prove correlation. - let alone causality. still nada. stfu until you have something."

I believe in money more than I do climate change. I will keep my stock, thank you.

What Tim Cook actually said:


"No, I wouldn’t be willing to say that because we do things for other reasons than profit motives. We do things because they are right and just and that is who we are. That’s who we are as a company. I don’t… when I think about human rights, I don’t think about an ROI. When I think about making our products accessible for the people that can’t see or to help a kid with autism, I don’t think about a bloody ROI, and by the same token, I don’t think about helping our environment from an ROI point of view. It’s not how I look at it. My simple point was if you did only look at it in that way for the Maiden data center, the same decisions would have been made and so there are cases where you can see these two spheres connecting but I’m not going to say that that’s all I’m going to do by any means. I don’t look at it that way. Just to be very straightforward with you, if that’s a hard line for you, if you only want me to make things, make decisions that have a clear ROI, then you should get out of the stock just to be plain and simple… Thank you. I think it’s so important to remember that the Apple brand stands for something and you can’t take each piece of it and say, “This has a 20% ROI and this has a 15, and you shouldn’t have given this $100 million to education,” and all this kind of stuff. That’s not the way we look at it. It’s not who we are as people."