Skip navigation

Stockbrokers 2

or Register to post new content in the forum

28 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Jul 8, 2007 9:49 pm

[quote=joedabrkr]

Cyclical stocks are usually appear cheapest at their peak valuations.

How's that for ignoring valuations.

For your sake I hope I'm wrong.  Either way we shouldn't be commenting on a specific stock on a public board, so I'm done with this thread.
[/quote]

We'll be done with this thread - you are right.  I guess we shouldn't be talking stocks...

Where did you hear that - I'm not sure what you mean.

Either way, I'M LONG and there is no talking me out of it!!!!!!

Take U.S. Steel for example (X) - The stock is trading at 4X Estimated growth Rate.  It is 4X more expensive that PCP.

How about that for valuations?

Jul 8, 2007 9:51 pm

For the Record.

I didn't find it at 122

I found it at 85.

Thanks for hoping it works out!

Maybe this wasn't the best example.

How about Micron?

Jul 8, 2007 9:57 pm

combining the two (fundamental and technical) works pretty well. 

and when looking to buy a stock when all the fundamental adds up positive what makes XYZ better then ABC, Technical. It’s much better for the short term guidance.  think of how many buy rated blue chips out there that don’t do anything despite incredible fundamentals.

too many advisers rely on some finance 101 class, Jones training program, or even the CFP investments section, which is about 100 level as well to support their mindset. 

They both work, most aren’t comfortable or educated enough on the second.


Jul 8, 2007 10:01 pm

[quote=FreeLunch]

Where did you hear that - I’m not sure what you mean.

[/quote]

I didn’t know what it meant until I was whipsawed by homebuilders in the LAST downcycle.  I didn’t understood what it mean, either.

Take some time to think it over.

Meanwhile, I’m glad it’s working out for you so far.

And no, we shouldn’t discuss opinions/ideas regarding specific stocks on here…that can cause problems for us.
Jul 8, 2007 10:01 pm

[quote=GoingIndy????]combining the two (fundamental and technical) works pretty well. 

and when looking to buy a stock when all the fundamental adds up positive what makes XYZ better then ABC, Technical. It's much better for the short term guidance.  think of how many buy rated blue chips out there that don't do anything despite incredible fundamentals.

too many advisers rely on some finance 101 class, Jones training program, or even the CFP investments section, which is about 100 level as well to support their mindset. 

They both work, most aren't comfortable or educated enough on the second.


[/quote]

Agreed.

Jul 8, 2007 10:06 pm

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=FreeLunch]

Where did you hear that - I'm not sure what you mean.

[/quote]

I didn't know what it meant until I was whipsawed by homebuilders in the LAST downcycle.  I didn't understood what it mean, either.

Take some time to think it over.

Meanwhile, I'm glad it's working out for you so far.

And no, we shouldn't discuss opinions/ideas regarding specific stocks on here....that can cause problems for us.
[/quote]

Thanks for the tip.  A lack of being open-minded when it comes to trading equities can get you wamboozled.

Jul 8, 2007 10:09 pm

[quote=FreeLunch]

Thanks for the tip.  A lack of being open-minded when it comes to trading equities can get you wamboozled.

[/quote]

Well said.

Most of the time when I think I’ve got it all figured out I end up learning something new.
Jul 9, 2007 4:09 am

Thanks