Stock Thread (16 Viewers)

[Orange&Blue]

United Health...yikes

 

[Orange&Blue]

If a health insurance company misses projections, how can anyone have confidence in any other company meeting projections?

 

[Dr_Zaius]

Looks like my NVDA 100.01 hasn't quite filled...

I sold a Jun 100 Put on NVDA back in February. At this point I find myself hoping they get assigned with the stock at like $99.50 or something. Although I wouldn't cry if it was never assigned as I'm long already.

When is the expiry and what was the cost?

Expiry is 6/20 and I got $5.15 for it. Could have gotten more if I would have waited a few weeks for the tariff madness to hit. Value is around $8 now.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Looks like my NVDA 100.01 hasn't quite filled...

I sold a Jun 100 Put on NVDA back in February. At this point I find myself hoping they get assigned with the stock at like $99.50 or something. Although I wouldn't cry if it was never assigned as I'm long already.

When is the expiry and what was the cost?

Expiry is 6/20 and I got $5.15 for it. Could have gotten more if I would have waited a few weeks for the tariff madness to hit. Value is around $8 now.

So essentially $95 cost basis, which isn't bad for a long-term hold if it's assigned

 

[Todem]

Looks like my NVDA 100.01 hasn't quite filled...

I sold a Jun 100 Put on NVDA back in February. At this point I find myself hoping they get assigned with the stock at like $99.50 or something. Although I wouldn't cry if it was never assigned as I'm long already.

If you sold the put “you” would be assigned the 100 shares at $100 per share. I think that is what you meant.

 

[Dr_Zaius]

Looks like my NVDA 100.01 hasn't quite filled...

I sold a Jun 100 Put on NVDA back in February. At this point I find myself hoping they get assigned with the stock at like $99.50 or something. Although I wouldn't cry if it was never assigned as I'm long already.

If you sold the put “you” would be assigned the 100 shares at $100 per share. I think that is what you meant.

Right sorry. Yeah I meant that if it stays above $100 per share I'm cool with that, but even though when I sold it I thought it would most likely expire out of the money, I'm kind of rooting for assignment now as more shares at $100 seems like a nice deal to me.

 

[Sand]

I musta gotten a dividend as I had a magical $120 in my gambooooling account. Bought 1 sweet NVDA share at 101. Gonna be rich, baby.

 

[Judge Smails]

If a health insurance company misses projections, how can anyone have confidence in any other company meeting projections?

Well they had extenuating circumstances for sure. The Optum issue cost them so much $$

 

[beef]

I understand the point of buying low, but I wouldn't invest anything. I heard buy low last week too.

I don't trust any of this.

This is why I'm buying and will continue with every check I get. Everyone is nervous and doesn't trust the market. This one still seems very self inflicted and could turn real fast. And if stocks to drop more I'll DCA. Buy low is a range for me. I'm not trying to pick the bottom and then get in.

 

[Bossman]

I musta gotten a dividend as I had a magical $120 in my gambooooling account. Bought 1 sweet NVDA share at 101. Gonna be rich, baby.

"Chip and a chair" as they say

 

[Bossman]

"No JINX"

NFLX makes me smile. Might get back to $1000 with earnings happening.
Maybe a UFC deal? ... and they are due for a split (which drives the stock price up for no reason).

My goodness .... got chunks at 877 and 863 when the market was way down. Earnings has it back over $1k after hours.
Seems this one is Tariff and recession proof.
Pretty much my only shinning star as of late.

 

[BassNBrew]

I understand the point of buying low, but I wouldn't invest anything. I heard buy low last week too.

I don't trust any of this.

See the post above. Maybe this isn't the bottom, but the harm of adding too early is much worse than the harm of missing the bounce.

I went from about 100% invested at the bottom to 93% after I closed some unneeded margin buys on the bounce. I've deployed about 2% since. Hard to buy when you bought 10-20% cheaper a week or two ago. I've moved on to my next strategy which was to open a Roth. If we see a 10% drop from here, I'll begin converting traditional IRA funds to Roth and eat the taxes. Personally I wouldn't mind a huge crash and going to town on converting cheap shares. I really like this approach because I win in either instance being mostly invested on a recovery or having 100% of my IRA available to convert.

 

[BassNBrew]

"No JINX"

NFLX makes me smile. Might get back to $1000 with earnings happening.
Maybe a UFC deal? ... and they are due for a split (which drives the stock price up for no reason).

My goodness .... got chunks at 877 and 863 when the market was way down. Earnings has it back over $1k after hours.
Seems this one is Tariff and recession proof.
Pretty much my only shinning star as of late.

Very nice. Congrats.

 

[KGB]

"No JINX"

NFLX makes me smile. Might get back to $1000 with earnings happening.
Maybe a UFC deal? ... and they are due for a split (which drives the stock price up for no reason).

My goodness .... got chunks at 877 and 863 when the market was way down. Earnings has it back over $1k after hours.
Seems this one is Tariff and recession proof.
Pretty much my only shinning star as of late.

Nice hit!

 

[Desert_Power]

I understand the point of buying low, but I wouldn't invest anything. I heard buy low last week too.

I don't trust any of this.

This is why I'm buying and will continue with every check I get. Everyone is nervous and doesn't trust the market. This one still seems very self inflicted and could turn real fast. And if stocks to drop more I'll DCA. Buy low is a range for me. I'm not trying to pick the bottom and then get in.

I think the bold raises the risks of the current moment substantially. Even when we've had serious crisis in the past, you knew that policymakers would be trying their best to solve it. A self-inflicted crisis necessarily suggests different motivations.

 

[Sand]

I understand the point of buying low, but I wouldn't invest anything. I heard buy low last week too.

I don't trust any of this.

This is why I'm buying and will continue with every check I get. Everyone is nervous and doesn't trust the market. This one still seems very self inflicted and could turn real fast. And if stocks to drop more I'll DCA. Buy low is a range for me. I'm not trying to pick the bottom and then get in.

I think the bold raises the risks of the current moment substantially. Even when we've had serious crisis in the past, you knew that policymakers would be trying their best to solve it. A self-inflicted crisis necessarily suggests different motivations.

2008 was very much self inflicted.

 

[Desert_Power]

I understand the point of buying low, but I wouldn't invest anything. I heard buy low last week too.

I don't trust any of this.

This is why I'm buying and will continue with every check I get. Everyone is nervous and doesn't trust the market. This one still seems very self inflicted and could turn real fast. And if stocks to drop more I'll DCA. Buy low is a range for me. I'm not trying to pick the bottom and then get in.

I think the bold raises the risks of the current moment substantially. Even when we've had serious crisis in the past, you knew that policymakers would be trying their best to solve it. A self-inflicted crisis necessarily suggests different motivations.

2008 was very much self inflicted.

I think there are many ways to take that and I probably agree with most.

It's really the "could turn real fast" part that I focus on increasing volatility and risk. Because it is less about structural excess or laws, but words emanating from a person.

I think that the longer the switch stays in the "high-tariff" position, the more the upside part becomes out of reach.

 

[Desert_Power]

Fed should have cut earlier in 2008 for sure though.

 

[Sand]

Fed should have cut earlier in 2008 for sure though.

Regulators should have never allowed the crap that was packaged as AAA to be packaged as AAA - should have been packaged more like B.

 

[Desert_Power]

Fed should have cut earlier in 2008 for sure though.

Regulators should have never allowed the crap that was packaged as AAA to be packaged as AAA - should have been packaged more like B.

Amazing that there was really no reform or regulation of the rating agencies in all of that

 

[Stoneworker]

This applies to right now. Power thru all this noise and ask yourself…..do I care 5-7-10 years from now?

Scoop up high quality stocks when they are being beaten down in times of high volatility and uncertainty.

Why should investors care what happens 5-7-10 years from now?

Because this is how a simple "scoop up high-quality stocks when they are beaten down (e.g. 40% from peak)" strategy would have performed over a ten-year period the last time there was a tech bubble (and yes, we are still in a tech bubble).

Cisco
Peak price (Mar. 2000): $81.62
Down 40% (Dec. 2000): $48.97
10 years later (Dec 2010): $19.70
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -8.7%

Microsoft
Peak price (Dec. 1999): $58.72
Down 40% (Apr. 2001): $35.23
Ten years later (Apr 2011): $25.52
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -3.2%

Intel
Peak price (Aug. 2000): $73.94
Down 40% (Oct. 2000): $44.36
Ten years later (Oct 2010): $19.32
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -8.0%


Valuations matter when it comes to expected future returns. And even after this recent decline, P/E ratios across the board are still near historical highs.

 

[Sand]

Microsoft
Peak price (Dec. 1999): $58.72
Down 40% (Apr. 2001): $35.23
Ten years later (Apr 2011): $25.52
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -3.2%

I'd be interested to see what the TTM PE ratios were here in these three time slots. MSFT is currently at about 29.

 

[BassNBrew]

This applies to right now. Power thru all this noise and ask yourself…..do I care 5-7-10 years from now?

Scoop up high quality stocks when they are being beaten down in times of high volatility and uncertainty.

Why should investors care what happens 5-7-10 years from now?

Because this is how a simple "scoop up high-quality stocks when they are beaten down (e.g. 40% from peak)" strategy would have performed over a ten-year period the last time there was a tech bubble (and yes, we are still in a tech bubble).

Cisco
Peak price (Mar. 2000): $81.62
Down 40% (Dec. 2000): $48.97
10 years later (Dec 2010): $19.70
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -8.7%

Microsoft
Peak price (Dec. 1999): $58.72
Down 40% (Apr. 2001): $35.23
Ten years later (Apr 2011): $25.52
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -3.2%

Intel
Peak price (Aug. 2000): $73.94
Down 40% (Oct. 2000): $44.36
Ten years later (Oct 2010): $19.32
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -8.0%


Valuations matter when it comes to expected future returns. And even after this recent decline, P/E ratios across the board are still near historical highs.

1498 - 1240
1458 - 1326
1500 - 1165

S&P was down over the dates above. Most stocks were losers. I you look at 2002 to 2007 the S&P almost doubled.

In March 2000, Cisco's P/E ratio was exceptionally high, reaching 196.2, making it the highest among the 10 largest stocks at that time.

At the end of 1999, Microsoft's PE ratio was significantly elevated, reaching a peak of over 74 times earnings.

Intel I'm struggling with but maybe it was around 37.

Amazon is currently at 31 PE And Microsoft 29. You can't compare these to 196 and 74.

Also I'm not a huge fan of comparing eras, because what took 10 years in 2000-2010 can probably be accomplished in half the time now with technology. Obviously that will bit the companies that don't keep pace.

Buy on the way down from new lows, trim on the way up from new highs consistently works.

 

[BassNBrew]

Microsoft
Peak price (Dec. 1999): $58.72
Down 40% (Apr. 2001): $35.23
Ten years later (Apr 2011): $25.52
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -3.2%

I'd be interested to see what the TTM PE ratios were here in these three time slots. MSFT is currently at about 29.

See above.

 

[pecorino]

Bought a bit of UNH yesterday at $450.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Microsoft
Peak price (Dec. 1999): $58.72
Down 40% (Apr. 2001): $35.23
Ten years later (Apr 2011): $25.52
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -3.2%

I'd be interested to see what the TTM PE ratios were here in these three time slots. MSFT is currently at about 29.

See above.

Those are PE's at the peak, not after the initial drawdown. What were the PE's after they had dropped the first 40% where they still had a long way to go. You're comparing their peak when at ATH versus the current Mag 6's PEs now after being drawn down quite a bit.

ETA: For example MSFT's PE ratio in March 2001 when @Stoneworker is saying people were prematurely buying was 29. The exact same as it is right now.

 

[Stoneworker]

At the end of 1999, Microsoft's PE ratio was significantly elevated, reaching a peak of over 74 times earnings.

Amazon is currently at 31 PE And Microsoft 29. You can't compare these to 196 and 74.

Yes, you can.

MSFT's EPS grew 69% for the year ended 1999 ($1.42 vs. $0.89), therefore justifying the relatively elevated PE

For 2024, MSFT's EPS only grew 12.9% ($12.41 vs. $10.99). So naturally it's going to have a lower PE peak starting point

Higher future growth prospects, higher PE and vice versa

 

[BassNBrew]

Microsoft
Peak price (Dec. 1999): $58.72
Down 40% (Apr. 2001): $35.23
Ten years later (Apr 2011): $25.52
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -3.2%

I'd be interested to see what the TTM PE ratios were here in these three time slots. MSFT is currently at about 29.

See above.

Those are PE's at the peak, not after the initial drawdown. What were the PE's after they had dropped the first 40% where they still had a long way to go. You're comparing their peak when at ATH versus the current Mag 6's PEs now after being drawn down quite a bit.

ETA: For example MSFT's PE ratio in March 2001 when @Stoneworker is saying people were prematurely buying was 29. The exact same as it is right now.

Not sayaing you are wrong...here's chatgpt's take

In March 2001, Microsoft's price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio was approximately 70. This elevated valuation was characteristic of the tech sector during the dot-com bubble, a period marked by high investor expectations for future growth. At that time, Microsoft's stock closed at $16.80, with a trailing twelve-month earnings per share (EPS) of about $0.24, resulting in the high P/E ratio.

If I go back to Microsoft's peak price recently the PE jumps to 35. If the PE had been 70 the price would have been double and today's price would be down 60%. We are close to the same place now as then.

 

[BassNBrew]

At the end of 1999, Microsoft's PE ratio was significantly elevated, reaching a peak of over 74 times earnings.

Amazon is currently at 31 PE And Microsoft 29. You can't compare these to 196 and 74.

Yes, you can.

MSFT's EPS grew 69% for the year ended 1999 ($1.42 vs. $0.89), therefore justifying the relatively elevated PE

For 2024, MSFT's EPS only grew 12.9% ($12.41 vs. $10.99). So naturally it's going to have a lower PE peak starting point

Higher future growth prospects, higher PE and vice versa

In that case I think you should be comparing it to Axon and Palantir. The 2000 era company's didn't have the various pillars you see with Amazon, Microsoft, and Google.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Microsoft
Peak price (Dec. 1999): $58.72
Down 40% (Apr. 2001): $35.23
Ten years later (Apr 2011): $25.52
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -3.2%

I'd be interested to see what the TTM PE ratios were here in these three time slots. MSFT is currently at about 29.

See above.

Those are PE's at the peak, not after the initial drawdown. What were the PE's after they had dropped the first 40% where they still had a long way to go. You're comparing their peak when at ATH versus the current Mag 6's PEs now after being drawn down quite a bit.

ETA: For example MSFT's PE ratio in March 2001 when @Stoneworker is saying people were prematurely buying was 29. The exact same as it is right now.

Not sayaing you are wrong...here's chatgpt's take

In March 2001, Microsoft's price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio was approximately 70. This elevated valuation was characteristic of the tech sector during the dot-com bubble, a period marked by high investor expectations for future growth. At that time, Microsoft's stock closed at $16.80, with a trailing twelve-month earnings per share (EPS) of about $0.24, resulting in the high P/E ratio.

If I go back to Microsoft's peak price recently the PE jumps to 35. If the PE had been 70 the price would have been double and today's price would be down 60%. We are close to the same place now as then.

I asked chatgpt who had the most elite 8 appearances in the last 20 years and it said Kentucky with 38, so it's not always reliable.

I'm getting the 29 number in March 2001 from here: https://companiesmarketcap.com/nzd/microsoft/pe-ratio/

I believe chatgpt's source is this reddit thread, where 1 reddit user said it was 70 without quoting any sources: https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/wa9e97/why_did_companies_like_microsoft_and_google_not/

ETA: And when I ask chatgpt it says 29

"In March 2001, Microsoft's stock closed at $16.80 per share. At that time, the company's price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio was approximately 28.97 ."

 

[Stoneworker]

At the end of 1999, Microsoft's PE ratio was significantly elevated, reaching a peak of over 74 times earnings.

Amazon is currently at 31 PE And Microsoft 29. You can't compare these to 196 and 74.

Yes, you can.

MSFT's EPS grew 69% for the year ended 1999 ($1.42 vs. $0.89), therefore justifying the relatively elevated PE

For 2024, MSFT's EPS only grew 12.9% ($12.41 vs. $10.99). So naturally it's going to have a lower PE peak starting point

Higher future growth prospects, higher PE and vice versa

In that case I think you should be comparing it to Axon and Palantir. The 2000 era company's didn't have the various pillars you see with Amazon, Microsoft, and Google.

There were a significant number of IT and networking "pillars" back in 2000, including Microsoft and Intel (which is specifically why I chose them to analyze). Others included Oracle, HP, Sun Microsystems, etc.

The 2000-era tech overvaluations were based on Internet/e-commerce/broadband hype being brought forward, layered onto existing IT/networking platforms, and then incorporated into stock prices prematurely. Today it is future benefits of AI, electric cars, etc.

Same concept.

 

[KGB]

Remember all those shipping stocks dodds used to buy.

Thinking maybe shorting

 

[Sand]

ETA: And when I ask chatgpt it says 29

"In March 2001, Microsoft's stock closed at $16.80 per share. At that time, the company's price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio was approximately 28.97 ."

ChatGPT makes crap up. I trust nothing that these engines spit out.

 

[BassNBrew]

Remember all those shipping stocks dodds used to buy.

Thinking maybe shorting

I was thinking of buying as rates will go up.

 

[BassNBrew]

Remember all those shipping stocks dodds used to buy.

Thinking maybe shorting

And the PE on some of these is 4-6 with a big dividend.

 

[Desert_Power]

ETA: And when I ask chatgpt it says 29

"In March 2001, Microsoft's stock closed at $16.80 per share. At that time, the company's price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio was approximately 28.97 ."

ChatGPT makes crap up. I trust nothing that these engines spit out.

There are some use cases I've liked but was arguing with the other day about a tax question telling it that what it was saying wasn't in its sources.

 

[BassNBrew]

At the end of 1999, Microsoft's PE ratio was significantly elevated, reaching a peak of over 74 times earnings.

Amazon is currently at 31 PE And Microsoft 29. You can't compare these to 196 and 74.

Yes, you can.

MSFT's EPS grew 69% for the year ended 1999 ($1.42 vs. $0.89), therefore justifying the relatively elevated PE

For 2024, MSFT's EPS only grew 12.9% ($12.41 vs. $10.99). So naturally it's going to have a lower PE peak starting point

Higher future growth prospects, higher PE and vice versa

In that case I think you should be comparing it to Axon and Palantir. The 2000 era company's didn't have the various pillars you see with Amazon, Microsoft, and Google.

There were a significant number of IT and networking "pillars" back in 2000, including Microsoft and Intel (which is specifically why I chose them to analyze). Others included Oracle, HP, Sun Microsystems, etc.

The 2000-era tech overvaluations were based on Internet/e-commerce/broadband hype being brought forward, layered onto existing IT/networking platforms, and then incorporated into stock prices prematurely. Today it is future benefits of AI, electric cars, etc.

Same concept.

As a note, while I disagree with a lot of what you're saying, I do read it all and digest it to moderate my views.

 

[Todem]

This applies to right now. Power thru all this noise and ask yourself…..do I care 5-7-10 years from now?

Scoop up high quality stocks when they are being beaten down in times of high volatility and uncertainty.

Why should investors care what happens 5-7-10 years from now?

Because this is how a simple "scoop up high-quality stocks when they are beaten down (e.g. 40% from peak)" strategy would have performed over a ten-year period the last time there was a tech bubble (and yes, we are still in a tech bubble).

Cisco
Peak price (Mar. 2000): $81.62
Down 40% (Dec. 2000): $48.97
10 years later (Dec 2010): $19.70
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -8.7%

Microsoft
Peak price (Dec. 1999): $58.72
Down 40% (Apr. 2001): $35.23
Ten years later (Apr 2011): $25.52
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -3.2%

Intel
Peak price (Aug. 2000): $73.94
Down 40% (Oct. 2000): $44.36
Ten years later (Oct 2010): $19.32
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -8.0%


Valuations matter when it comes to expected future returns. And even after this recent decline, P/E ratios across the board are still near historical highs.

I don’t think you know me, what I do or how I have done over the course of my investment life.

I am not going to sit and go back and forth on a message board.

What I can tell you is I know exactly what I am doing, how to do it and have been doing it for clients since 1998.

I have been thru:

1998 - Russian crisis
2001 - 9/11
2002 - Tech Wreck
2008 and 3 months of 2009 The Great Recession
2011 - Greece crisis, Government shutdown crisis
2013 - Taper Tantrum
2018 - S&P Peak to trough 28% correction
2020 - Pandemic (and I pounded the floor here and shared a master list of a high quality diversified portfolio that made and continues to make money)
2022 - Interest Rate raises and bear market

And here we are again……and there is some value in Mega cap Tech undoubtedly.

Look….you do you……People who know me know I don’t lecture….I simply advise, help out and literally give free advice here.

Good luck to you.

Been doing this for myself since 1987 and for other people since 1998.

I will keep doing me.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

2020 - Pandemic (and I pounded the floor here and shared a master list of a high quality diversified portfolio that made and continues to make money)

 

[ghostguy123]

This applies to right now. Power thru all this noise and ask yourself…..do I care 5-7-10 years from now?

Scoop up high quality stocks when they are being beaten down in times of high volatility and uncertainty.

Why should investors care what happens 5-7-10 years from now?

Because this is how a simple "scoop up high-quality stocks when they are beaten down (e.g. 40% from peak)" strategy would have performed over a ten-year period the last time there was a tech bubble (and yes, we are still in a tech bubble).

Cisco
Peak price (Mar. 2000): $81.62
Down 40% (Dec. 2000): $48.97
10 years later (Dec 2010): $19.70
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -8.7%

Microsoft
Peak price (Dec. 1999): $58.72
Down 40% (Apr. 2001): $35.23
Ten years later (Apr 2011): $25.52
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -3.2%

Intel
Peak price (Aug. 2000): $73.94
Down 40% (Oct. 2000): $44.36
Ten years later (Oct 2010): $19.32
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -8.0%


Valuations matter when it comes to expected future returns. And even after this recent decline, P/E ratios across the board are still near historical highs.

I will keep doing me.

You better.

I wish back in COVID times I knew what I know now about YOU specifically, cause I woulda made a whole lot more money in my "play" account, probably around 75-100% more had I simply divided it up using the master list.

 

[Stoneworker]

This applies to right now. Power thru all this noise and ask yourself…..do I care 5-7-10 years from now?

Scoop up high quality stocks when they are being beaten down in times of high volatility and uncertainty.

Why should investors care what happens 5-7-10 years from now?

Because this is how a simple "scoop up high-quality stocks when they are beaten down (e.g. 40% from peak)" strategy would have performed over a ten-year period the last time there was a tech bubble (and yes, we are still in a tech bubble).

Cisco
Peak price (Mar. 2000): $81.62
Down 40% (Dec. 2000): $48.97
10 years later (Dec 2010): $19.70
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -8.7%

Microsoft
Peak price (Dec. 1999): $58.72
Down 40% (Apr. 2001): $35.23
Ten years later (Apr 2011): $25.52
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -3.2%

Intel
Peak price (Aug. 2000): $73.94
Down 40% (Oct. 2000): $44.36
Ten years later (Oct 2010): $19.32
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -8.0%


Valuations matter when it comes to expected future returns. And even after this recent decline, P/E ratios across the board are still near historical highs.

I don’t think you know me, what I do or how I have done over the course of my investment life.

I am not going to sit and go back and forth on a message board.

What I can tell you is I know exactly what I am doing, how to do it and have been doing it for clients since 1998.

I have been thru:

1998 - Russian crisis
2001 - 9/11
2002 - Tech Wreck
2008 and 3 months of 2009 The Great Recession
2011 - Greece crisis, Government shutdown crisis
2013 - Taper Tantrum
2018 - S&P Peak to trough 28% correction
2020 - Pandemic (and I pounded the floor here and shared a master list of a high quality diversified portfolio that made and continues to make money)
2022 - Interest Rate raises and bear market

And here we are again……and there is some value in Mega cap Tech undoubtedly.

Look….you do you……People who know me know I don’t lecture….I simply advise, help out and literally give free advice here.

Good luck to you.

Been doing this for myself since 1987 and for other people since 1998.

I will keep doing me.

You're right. I don't know you. Nor do you know me and what I've done over my own financial career.

But I do know that when someone offers only their self-promoting resume and a condescendingly snarky response to a financial concept proven by years of research (i.e. the inverse correlation between PE ratios and expected returns), then it most often means they can't back up highly simplistic statements like "scoop up stocks now" and "what do I care in 5-7-10 years" with anything resembling sound reasoning.

Good luck to you as well.

 

[Nugget]

I’m looking at options on frozen concentrated orange juice. Trying to see if I can use leverage by financing through a blockchain data warehouse in Chennai.

 

[Todem]

D

This applies to right now. Power thru all this noise and ask yourself…..do I care 5-7-10 years from now?

Scoop up high quality stocks when they are being beaten down in times of high volatility and uncertainty.

Why should investors care what happens 5-7-10 years from now?

Because this is how a simple "scoop up high-quality stocks when they are beaten down (e.g. 40% from peak)" strategy would have performed over a ten-year period the last time there was a tech bubble (and yes, we are still in a tech bubble).

Cisco
Peak price (Mar. 2000): $81.62
Down 40% (Dec. 2000): $48.97
10 years later (Dec 2010): $19.70
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -8.7%

Microsoft
Peak price (Dec. 1999): $58.72
Down 40% (Apr. 2001): $35.23
Ten years later (Apr 2011): $25.52
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -3.2%

Intel
Peak price (Aug. 2000): $73.94
Down 40% (Oct. 2000): $44.36
Ten years later (Oct 2010): $19.32
10-year annual return after buying down 40%: -8.0%


Valuations matter when it comes to expected future returns. And even after this recent decline, P/E ratios across the board are still near historical highs.

I don’t think you know me, what I do or how I have done over the course of my investment life.

I am not going to sit and go back and forth on a message board.

What I can tell you is I know exactly what I am doing, how to do it and have been doing it for clients since 1998.

I have been thru:

1998 - Russian crisis
2001 - 9/11
2002 - Tech Wreck
2008 and 3 months of 2009 The Great Recession
2011 - Greece crisis, Government shutdown crisis
2013 - Taper Tantrum
2018 - S&P Peak to trough 28% correction
2020 - Pandemic (and I pounded the floor here and shared a master list of a high quality diversified portfolio that made and continues to make money)
2022 - Interest Rate raises and bear market

And here we are again……and there is some value in Mega cap Tech undoubtedly.

Look….you do you……People who know me know I don’t lecture….I simply advise, help out and literally give free advice here.

Good luck to you.

Been doing this for myself since 1987 and for other people since 1998.

I will keep doing me.

You're right. I don't know you. Nor do you know me and what I've done over my own financial career.

But I do know that when someone offers only their resume and a condescendingly snarky response to a financial concept proven by years of research (i.e. the inverse correlation between PE ratios and expected returns), then it most often means they can't back up highly simplistic statements like "scoop up stocks now" and "what do I care in 5-7-10 years."

Good luck to you as well.

Oooookay then.

 

[culdeus]

I don't think jpow is going to save us. The dollar is devaluing faster than any rate cut could possibly move the needle.

I wish there was some sort of fund that collared the market without having to manage the option dates.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

I don't think jpow is going to save us. The dollar is devaluing faster than any rate cut could possibly move the needle.

I wish there was some sort of fund that collared the market without having to manage the option dates.

Lowering interest rates isn't going to fix this. He'll be the boogie man though.

 

[Todem]

I don't think jpow is going to save us. The dollar is devaluing faster than any rate cut could possibly move the needle.

I wish there was some sort of fund that collared the market without having to manage the option dates.

Lowering interest rates isn't going to fix this. He'll be the boogie man though.

Boogey Powell

Sounds like an old school NBA players name.

I like it.

 

[BassNBrew]

I don't think jpow is going to save us. The dollar is devaluing faster than any rate cut could possibly move the needle.

I wish there was some sort of fund that collared the market without having to manage the option dates.

Lowering interest rates isn't going to fix this. He'll be the boogie man though.

Boogey Powell

Sounds like an old school NBA players name.

I like it.

Boog Powell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rirruto]

I went full paper hands on my May SPY puts. Part of that was to lock in an acceptable profit, part was because I fear retail’s ability to continue propping up the market, and part because I expect a smattering of trade deals that no one reads beyond the headline. Just as with the “pause” there will be money to be made with realizing that the pause was still a 10% tariff rate. I think Q3 is where we see blood on earnings calls. I’ve seen 2 or 3 layoff stories. No one is hiring or spending money because of the 90 day uncertainty period. We know inflation is going up as the tariffs are added into prices. We know corporate profits are going down as firms eat as much of the tariffs as they can. We know employment will stagnate at best and we will almost certainly see higher unemployment. That’s all future stuff though. I’ll make that money later.

My gold calls are up 43.57%. I don’t see any way I hold them much longer. I’m not great at options because I see a great profit and just take it. I think gold will continue to rise, and I’ll continue to hold gold ETFs, but I don’t have the stomach to hold out for more.

I’ll likely add to my December expiration puts for SPY. Currently up 9.51%. Retail won’t stop buying the dip. I want another deep green day before I add. Maybe when the first trade deal is announced.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

Fed should have cut earlier in 2008 for sure though.

Regulators should have never allowed the crap that was packaged as AAA to be packaged as AAA - should have been packaged more like B.

Amazing that there was really no reform or regulation of the rating agencies in all of that

Investors should have been smart enough to research and understand what they were investing in

 

[Sand]

Fed should have cut earlier in 2008 for sure though.

Regulators should have never allowed the crap that was packaged as AAA to be packaged as AAA - should have been packaged more like B.

Amazing that there was really no reform or regulation of the rating agencies in all of that

Investors should have been smart enough to research and understand what they were investing in

Like Lehman?