Stocks - The Best Buys 2

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

An interesting look at the state of the top tech stocks now compared to the .com bubble.

Shows the largest market cap stocks now, while taking up a bigger portion of the stock market, are relatively much stronger and better valued.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/sto...s-tech-bubble/

Just thought it was interesting as I've heard some reports of another bubble that was compared to the .com bubble.

While the total share has increased, metrics are much stronger this time around - P/E, profit margins, cash on hand. Of the original 7 in 2000, only Microsoft stands. Just goes to show being a first mover doesn't guarantee success. At the end of the day you have to stay on top of trends and market cycles.

Based on the data there shouldn't be too much concern of a dot com bubble as all the factors point to a much stronger sector. Tech remains to be the future and there are still some smaller gems out there. Is there concentration risk? Yes, but the sector as a whole is stronger than ever.

[bluejays]

I can't say I'm in expert (far from it, actually), but the haves vs. have nots seem to be separating more than ever in the tech sector. On the hardware side, these pieces require more complex nano equipment to produce. On the software side the coding is getting more complex requiring proprietary software to program. Simply put a mom and pop startup hopes to be bought out by the big guns to get anywhere. But organic growth to compete with the big giants seems like an impossibility these days. The giants will likely get bigger if I were to guess.

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by bluejays

I can't say I'm in expert (far from it, actually), but the haves vs. have nots seem to be separating more than ever in the tech sector. On the hardware side, these pieces require more complex nano equipment to produce. On the software side the coding is getting more complex requiring proprietary software to program. Simply put a mom and pop startup hopes to be bought out by the big guns to get anywhere. But organic growth to compete with the big giants seems like an impossibility these days. The giants will likely get bigger if I were to guess.

To the contrary, the giants will gobble up smaller companies with the IP at inflated multiples. Just look at companies like Rin.ai, Splunk, and HashiCorp.

[blender]

Heading up to the US election next week, and I'm looking for a possible buy-low value play if the market reacts to the election results.

Anyone got anything they are keeping an eye on?
General thoughts?

[GGG]

I think companies that will benefit from Tarrifs benefit from a Trump win and are hurt by a Harris win.

The other thought would be defence contractors the war in Ukraine is good for them. Trump in power likely reduces US support for the war machine while Harris is status quo.

Even though Harris is Status quo some of Trump winning is already priced in. Though If you want to gamble on the election why not do it directly? There you are just picking a winner rather than picking a winner and trying to determine how the public / market will react to said person winning.

[blender]

To clarify, not really looking to gamble on the election as much as find a favorable entry point on something long-term like tech, defense or banking.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by blender

To clarify, not really looking to gamble on the election as much as find a favorable entry point on something long-term like tech, defense or banking.

It really has nothing to do with who is in power, and everything to do with uncertainly, which is something the market doesn't like. Election years tend to go sideways but this year was an exception.

On average there are four market corrections every year, you missed them all, and you missed a stellar 20% S&P rise YTD. And despite those corrections, you still would have been better off just having your money invested.

Time in the market is the most important thing...

[blender]

Originally Posted by Shazam

It really has nothing to do with who is in power, and everything to do with uncertainly, which is something the market doesn't like. Election years tend to go sideways but this year was an exception.

On average there are four market corrections every year, you missed them all, and you missed a stellar 20% S&P rise YTD. And despite those corrections, you still would have been better off just having your money invested.

Time in the market is the most important thing...

I have money invested. I have enjoyed great returns already this year on those investments so I don't feel I've missed anything. Like you said, I'm looking for a good timing opportunity based on market uncertainty surrounding the US election.

Am I wrong in thinking there might be buy-low opportunities here in the short-term?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by blender

I have money invested. I have enjoyed great returns already this year on those investments so I don't feel I've missed anything. Like you said, I'm looking for a good timing opportunity based on market uncertainty surrounding the US election.

Am I wrong in thinking there might be buy-low opportunities here in the short-term?

Today I guess.

[Samonadreau]

My stocks at least liked the election results.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Samonadreau

My stocks at least liked the election results.

Big companies paying less taxes is generally a good thing for big companies.

[GGG]

Also certainty of a result is good to. The election was decisive and won’t extend for 3 months.

[chedder]

Omg. A bearish Tesla analyst just changed his mind and went bullish. One of his main reasons is conservatives will now start buying telsa cars because of trump and his relationship with Musk.

What a world we live in. So a bunch of arseholes that call ev buyers libtards are now going to be on the streets in model S's.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by chedder

Omg. A bearish Tesla analyst just changed his mind and went bullish. One of his main reasons is conservatives will now start buying telsa cars because of trump and his relationship with Musk.

What a world we live in. So a bunch of arseholes that call ev buyers libtards are now going to be on the streets in model S's.

Who's this analyst? I'd like to know so I can avoid their advice in the future.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Who's this analyst? I'd like to know so I can avoid their advice in the future.

Yep, Cletus in Oklahoma isn’t about to haul his double wide with a cyber truck. Hell I’d listen to this guy and then invest completely opposite of his ideas. Probably be a billionaire tomorrow

[Table 5]

It's probably just best to ignore the advice of every analyst.

[bluejays]

I personally wasn't into TSLA before, but with their patents, and their vision based on software, I'm looking to buy into them a little, at a dip. But as I've shown, all of you should probably do the opposite because whatever I touch turns into coal.

[Fuzz]

Honestly, either of those aren't great reasons to invest, particularly with TSLA near an all time high. Their vision based software is a technological dead end if AGI doesn't happen. If you had wanted to invest because Musk has a plum position in the Trump admin and would be influencing policy that will increase TSLA value, well that to me seems a decent reason. I sure wouldn't do it on tech that has failed to achieve it's claims after years of trying, and still looks to be a long way from it with no clear path to success.

[bluejays]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Honestly, either of those aren't great reasons to invest, particularly with TSLA near an all time high. Their vision based software is a technological dead end if AGI doesn't happen. If you had wanted to invest because Musk has a plum position in the Trump admin and would be influencing policy that will increase TSLA value, well that to me seems a decent reason. I sure wouldn't do it on tech that has failed to achieve it's claims after years of trying, and still looks to be a long way from it with no clear path to success.

Thanks. Question though - where have you seen they’ve failed to deliver? I thought they’re miles ahead of others when it comes to self driving? Or is that not the case anymore?

[Fuzz]

Waymo is largely regarded as the leader here, but Chinese companies are making more progress lately. Tesla's main fault is that they've decided to rely on one type of sensor that is cheap. Their logic is that humans have eyes, and drive with eyes only, so a computer should be able to as well. I find this premise entirely flawed, least of which is that humans have brains. So we have eyes and brains. A Tesla has fixed position cameras and a computer. That computer is trained on human drivers who are imperfect. This computer has no knowledge of how a child holding a ball will behave, or a dog, or a cyclist, or any other obstacle on the road. It can only infer actions from it's training set, which will always be incomplete, since every drive you are encountering something novel. Tesla thinks more miles and training can overcome this fundamental problem that can't be solved without AGI.


The other issue with just cameras is we don't just drive with our eyes. We drive with our ears, the feeling of the road, the experience and memory of situations. We also drive on inference when we can't see things, like when a truck passes you in a snow storm. Why wouldn't you want extra sensors for situations like that? They got rid of ultrasonic parking sensors years ago, and the vision only replacement is largely regarded as garbage.



You can peruse the Tesla forums and see just how far they have to go as people describe the vehicle crossing yellow lines, not stopping for red lights, stopping for green lights, phantom breaking, inability to read road signs, and on and on. They have a long way to go, but I fundamentally feel they can't get their with the tech they have. And they've proved that every year since 2016 when Musk has said it's coming by the end of the year. I'm not sure what more evidence is needed that they are nowhere close than what is already out there.


The most accurate description is that it works incredibly well 95% of the time, other than the 5% it's trying to kill you.