Individual Stock Question

[Circus]

I don't see much talk about individual stocks around here, so I was wondering why that is.

 

Do most of you just not like talking about stocks you like or dislike, or are their rules about it?

 

Or is it just that most here don't invest in individual stocks?

[hegemony]

well I'd hate to see this forum become yahoo finance boards.

 

if you search, you'll see many of us have mentioned stocks we own(ed). IIRC I've talked about ING, AMZN, PAL, SBUX, etc.

 

I am thinking about getting back into SBUX for the long haul.

 

I buy within and outside of my retirement vehicles.

 

I only gamble with a few thousand for individual stocks. I don't have the time to invest to determine day to day buying and selling.

Edited December 27, 2007 by hegemony

[hurricanesfans27]

no need for pump n dump here. Although I will brag about my employers stock at its 52 week high again

[Circus]

no need for pump n dump here.

>>>>>

 

You couldn't pump and dump with a forum this size I wouldn't think. Not to mention that I'm not talking about stuff off the pink sheets here, I'm talking more along the lines of good old fashioned solid companies.

 

<<<<<

well I'd hate to see this forum become yahoo finance boards.

>>>>>

 

I agree with that, but I think that with the YFB you have a seedy underbelly element that tends to congregate to recommend penny stocks in what is clearly a pump and dump.

 

I was just curious as to the rhyme or reason of why this was since I personally enjoy talking about stocks.

[Circus]

Or to phrase it another way...we'll use hege's example of Starbucks.

 

I'm more intrigued about what makes someone want to own a particular stock. Do they see something I missed? Does their mind work differently that mine? Did I miss what should have been a rather telling indicator?

 

It's more the method to someone's madness that I enjoy more than crap like "Buy Company X - guaranteed quadruple in 30 days" and that sort of garbage.

Edited December 27, 2007 by Circus

[hegemony]

Or to phrase it another way...we'll use hege's example of Starbucks.

 

I'm more intrigued about what makes someone want to own a particular stock. Do they see something I missed? Does their mind work differently that mine? Did I miss what should have been a rather telling indicator?

 

It's more the method to someone's madness that I enjoy more than crap like "Buy Company X - guaranteed quadruple in 30 days" and that sort of garbage.

well on SBUX, the valuation is favorable and sure they may not grow as fast over the next 5 years the company has no real direct competitor. I traded it a few times when it was more expensive per share. My interest in it is not as a day trade but as something to hold for a longer time horizon.

[Circus]

See, that's what I'm talking about.

 

I don't trade, I invest.

[54regcab]

I think the reason most people don't buy individual stocks is the time and effort require to beat a mutual fund. Realize most investors buying individual stocks are quick to talk about the big kill they made but are quiet about all their losses. The average stock "trader" actually looses money once all trades and fees are factored in.

 

I'll stick with no-load mutual funds myself

[saladdin69]

On these typees of boards you may see some talk about individual stocks by using their "mad" money.

Mostly I know I am not smart enough to pick stocks that will gain as much as my funds and be as diversified.

 

 

saladdin

[Mike89]

I like to swing trade individual stocks by reading the charts. It really is amazing how stocks bounce off the moving averages, bounce off resistance ares, etc. mostly due to psychological factors of the investors. Fundementals of the company don't matter when you trade by using the charts as you usually only hold a stock for a few days or weeks.

 

Two things to keep in mind when buying or shorting individual stocks. 1. Stocks can remain over sold or become more over sold longer than most investors can remain solvent. 2.Stocks can remain over bought or become more over bought longer than most investors can remain solvent.

[Circus]

I think the reason most people don't buy individual stocks is the time and effort require to beat a mutual fund.

>>>>>

 

I see it as a weird form of fear.

 

I think that most people are OK blaming "someone" (i.e. a fund manager) for their losses, while they wouldn't want to have to look in the mirror and blame themselves for those same losses.

 

I am in a handful of funds through my firm's 401k plan. I also pick stocks myself for my Roth IRA. My IRA stocks beat my 401k mutual funds this year.

 

I have more faith in my lean, mean IRA than I do in the funds in the 401k since I'm not limited by the rules of running a mutual fund and the difficulties that come with moving in to and out of large positions in a fund.

 

I have faith every year that I will be my funds.

 

I don't always succeed, and it takes a lot of work to do the research (which is why I think that some people are better off going with funds - if you can't or won't put in the time then you should go with a fund) but the payoff is more rewarding, both personally and financially.

[tman]

I think the reason most people don't buy individual stocks is the time and effort require to beat a mutual fund. Realize most investors buying individual stocks are quick to talk about the big kill they made but are quiet about all their losses. The average stock "trader" actually looses money once all trades and fees are factored in.

 

I'll stick with no-load mutual funds myself Wise choice

[CactusWill]

You won't see too many individual stocks discussed here, as the primary focus of this board is credit.

 

Find a good stock board, and stay out of the penny forums. As a general guideline I recommend only NYSE and NASDAQ listed stocks, $5 and up.

[hegemony]

SBUX is looking very good this week!

[Circus]

Yeah, if you're in for the long haul, then you've got one hell of a buying opportunity lying at your feet.

 

But I'd suggest you do serious homework on this one. One of their EVP's, David Pace, has been exercising options and then dumping them on the open market for over a year now. However, their Chairman, Howard Schultz, has purchased several million shares in the past year, including just a few months back.

 

I'd suggest gradually legging in to this one...

[blackberry74]

I'd have to dig into SBUX more...other than their fundamentals, I'd like to know how they're going to fuel growth. At first glance it's worth looking into, though.

[Circus]

My biggest holding right now is Wells Fargo, and I'm getting ready to increase my position there. The stock has tanked lately, but the fundies look good. The sub prime damage seems to have mostly run it's course with WFC, so unless something so far unreported comes up I should be OK.

[hegemony]

Yeah, if you're in for the long haul, then you've got one hell of a buying opportunity lying at your feet.

 

But I'd suggest you do serious homework on this one. One of their EVP's, David Pace, has been exercising options and then dumping them on the open market for over a year now. However, their Chairman, Howard Schultz, has purchased several million shares in the past year, including just a few months back.

 

I'd suggest gradually legging in to this one...

I have looked at the options being exercised. As a longish term stock I still like it.

 

It may not grow as fast, but it is still a solid company that has not a single direct competitor (unlike target v. walmart, etc).

[hegemony]

and as an anecdote, anytime I've been to one overseas it has been packed.

[Circus]

and as an anecdote, anytime I've been to one overseas it has been packed.

 

That's key, but the downside to that is that Starbucks can't make any real inroads in China. If they could they could gain some truly explosive growth.

[cinderella]

I think the reason most people don't buy individual stocks is the time and effort require to beat a mutual fund.

>>>>>

 

I see it as a weird form of fear.

 

I think that most people are OK blaming "someone" (i.e. a fund manager) for their losses, while they wouldn't want to have to look in the mirror and blame themselves for those same losses.

 

I am in a handful of funds through my firm's 401k plan. I also pick stocks myself for my Roth IRA. My IRA stocks beat my 401k mutual funds this year.

 

I have more faith in my lean, mean IRA than I do in the funds in the 401k since I'm not limited by the rules of running a mutual fund and the difficulties that come with moving in to and out of large positions in a fund.

 

I have faith every year that I will be my funds.

 

I don't always succeed, and it takes a lot of work to do the research (which is why I think that some people are better off going with funds - if you can't or won't put in the time then you should go with a fund) but the payoff is more rewarding, both personally and financially.

 

 

Good for you.

 

The average age of the mutual fund manager is.......................................

 

Guess........!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guess 60, wrong.................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guess 40, wrong........................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guess 35.................wrong...................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Guess 29..........RIGHT!

 

 

 

With research and due diligence, I absolutely think a person can do very well managing their own investments against an average age of 29 for a mutual fund manager.

 

I think a person should evaluate a funds performance in lousy markets, not just when it is a bull market and everyone is doing well.

 

http://www.msmoney.com/mm/investing/articl..._mutualfund.htm

Edited January 4, 2008 by cinderella

[hegemony]

I could care less how old a mutual fund manager is. that is silly to even consider the mean age of all fund managers.

[54regcab]

I could care less how old a mutual fund manager is. that is silly to even consider the mean age of all fund managers.

 

Agreed, it makes no difference how old the MF manager is.

[cinderella]

I could care less how old a mutual fund manager is. that is silly to even consider the mean age of all fund managers.

 

Agreed, it makes no difference how old the MF manager is.

 

I think it is silly to not consider age and experience.

 

Would a 29 year managing a fund have any experience in investing in a recession right now? I'd be cautious to trust my money into a person with no experience in investing in various economic climates.

 

I want a fund manager who has been around to experience the markets in such areas as dot. com crashes, economic cycles as well as recessions and booms, various fed. policies of low interest rates to higher interest rates.

[hegemony]

I could care less how old a mutual fund manager is. that is silly to even consider the mean age of all fund managers.

 

Agreed, it makes no difference how old the MF manager is.

 

I think it is silly to not consider age and experience.

 

Would a 29 year managing a fund have any experience in investing in a recession right now? I'd be cautious to trust my money into a person with no experience in investing in various economic climates.

 

I want a fund manager who has been around to experience the markets in such areas as dot. com crashes, economic cycles as well as recessions and booms, various fed. policies of low interest rates to higher interest rates.

the reason it is silly is because you are using the mean for ALL managers, not looking specifically at the EXPERIENCE of the managers of the funds you bought or might buy.

 

it is also silly to use the statistic "mean age of all fund managers" to promote an argument that you can beat the market.

 

ETA: JMHO. ETAA: there may be other grounds to argue you can beat the market.

Edited January 4, 2008 by hegemony