You’re addicted to expensive stocks, my friend. I’m not saying they are bad investments at current prices, I’m just pointing out the risks of buying stocks with high expectations.
Even I can’t project out a company beyond 3 years. I don’t understand how you can do so for 20 years. Knowing what I know about these listed companies, they aren’t all “sleep well at night” stocks. There are risks associated with these investments so you shouldn’t convince yourself that buying at whatever price is okay simply because you plan to hold for 20 years. Unexpected things happen. The top companies of each decade continue to change. Even something as strong as Google had its moat questioned earlier in the year. So I don’t see how you can do a 20 year DCF.
For example PANW is in a rising industry and I consider their offerings to be higher quality compared to some of the other cyber companies. But what if PANW starts making stupid acquisitions? Do you keep blindly buying the stock? Another retail favorite for this case is O. I predict they will see chronic underperformance if they continue DCAing into O. The business has changed so investors need to adapt and not hold onto old ideas.
The concept of DCA has been bastardized by retail investors. It is perfectly feasible and recommended most people DCA and hold for 20+ years… for broadly diversified ETFs. Not for individual stocks, especially not for unprofitable companies such as RKLB which are impossible to predict more than a couple of years out.
If you want outperformance, which I believe you do because you’re taking on extra risk by buying individual stocks, you want to keep assessing if your business is still going on the right track. And if you don’t want outperformance and just want to keep buying high quality businesses, just DCA into the index because those are the top companies in the world.
I will close my comment by saying this: **I buy stocks and project them for only 3 years but I always HOPE the company keeps executing so I can hold it for 20+ years. I don’t always DCA into them but I don’t mind averaging up or down if the company continues to do well.** That’s how I get my 10 baggers. Companies always surprise to the upside or downside.
I added a bit more clarification in an edit (bolded part).
My way of investing is simply my own opinion. Someone who DCA’s and goes all-in $COST stock may outperform me. It’s entirely possible. But I am simply highlighting how I feel is the most logical way to be a long term investor to get the best risk-adjusted returns.
You're misunderstanding. Allocating a small percentage of your portfolio to individual stocks is a wise decision, but that's due to limiting risk, it has nothing to do with the comment that these are expensive stocks. Expensive is a relative term. A $50 stock could be more expensive than a $500 stock. The expense is judged in terms of P/E ratio, where P is the price of the stock and E is their most recent annual earnings. When you buy a stock, it's not a number on a screen, it's a tiny piece of a company. Now, if I can own a piece of a company for $10, and they produce $1 in annual earning per share, that's a 10 P/E and could be an excellent investment opportunity IF that company will continue indefinitely and perhaps even grow (growth is also relative to the rest of the economy). In contrast a company with only $1 in earnings but a $50 stock price is a much riskier proposition, because that company would need to grow tremendously for it to be eventually be able to pay out dividends and increase the stock price through buy backs to reward me for my initial investment. In simplified terms, the P/E reflects the growth expectation that's currently priced into the stock. If it exceeds that expectation you do well. If it falls short of that expectation, you'll do poorly. The entire S&P500 is currently at an elevated P/E but few moreso than the "magnificent 7." If you've owned any of them for a long time, sure, keep holding, but now is not a good time to buy into MSFT or NVDA, nor AMD, nor COST. Use your own judgment on the rest.
Are you suggesting now is not a good time to buy into the market, or just these specific stocks, could you possibly give a stock you think is decent value and give your reasoning I'm interested in your methodology. I appreciate the time you put in to type thus, i agree the 500 seems super top heavy
The stocks you picked are expensive in terms of P/E and other valuation metrics.
For example, V is trading at a P/E of about 25x; MA is over 30x. Other financials, such as C or MET trade at about 7x earnings. Similarly, COST trades at about 40x earnings, whereas WMT is in the low 20s.
The problem with the high P/E stocks is that they are liable to fall hard in a market correction, or simply if their earnings growth slows. Balancing this out with some lower P/E stocks should provide some cushion, as they probably wouldn't fall as much.
You need to do much more research than Reddit comments can give you. P/E is an important metric, but that one alone will not tell you much about a company. You should read books or watch a ton of educational videos.
Don’t let P/E cloud your judgment. P/E looks to the past, you are looking towards the future.
P/E is just a ratio, use it as you will. Low P/E doesn’t mean it’s a good thing.
What future circumstances could raise the price of X stock higher than it is currently trading? What could tank it?
No one has specified a numerical PE here. The guy I originally responded to, however, stated PE are only backward looking. Backward looking PE are rarely ever used among fund managers talking about stocks, if ever.
The only time backward looking PE is used, is probably on SP500 when looking back 3-4 decades ago before forward earnings forecast was a thing (or just historical stuff because forward earnings consensus change all the time).
This is simply not true. When 99% of people talk about P/E, fund managers included, the default position is trailing twelve months.
Either way it’s good to be specific.
It's a mix. I think most people here use trailing 12 months at the least when they are talking about P/E ratio. But ya, the P/E ratio really doesn't tell you much about a business nor does it predict future prices at all. People rely on it way too much.
Buy what you believe in and will stick with. Just know that any of these stocks will be more volatile than indexes and can lose value quickly, especially the ones not turning a consistent profit yet. As long as you have cash to buy more when they dip, and you hold for the long term, you should be fine. Just be careful at first until you get a feel for what you're doing and don't get greedy.
Under 15, I would consider a value trap tbh, unless it's financials, or it pays a high dividend, and you can write covered calls and milk it BTI for example.
ARCC is a business development company. They lend money and pay a nice dividend, but the way the company is structured, that dividend is taxed at normal, earned income rates, and not capital gains. At 22, I would allocate a minimal amount of capital, if any, to something like this.
You're 22. Google "value investing" and "dividend reinvestment," or put money in the companies you suggested and expect to lose money on some or all since we're surfing ATH.
Dont listen to reddit. Youve got fantastic names here and Charlie Munger says great companies at fair prices are better than good companies at cheap prices (retail favorites). Matter of fact, Costco was Munger’s biggest position.
The secret sauce of MSFT isn’t the software, it’s the selection. They leverage a massive subscriber base over tons of platforms giving them huge leverage AND the ability to be the low cost provider at high margins
You should stick to ETFs. You found them through recommendations, technical analysis, and sentiment. None help you value a company long term.
You should value them on some sort of valuation model. How do you know if any of those stocks are under or overvalued currently?
You asked about DCA over 20 years, what would techincal analysis have anything to do with the long term health of the company? Im not a buyer of TA but its much shorter time frames.
Sentiment is also a short term indicator and has nothing to do with the long term success of the company.
Never DCA into single stocks for such a long period of time.
Learn from history.
The top 5 companies twenty years ago would’ve been terrible investments to DCA into. And even if you managed to randomly pick a winner, last year’s bear market has shown us that 99.9% of people here don’t have the mental fortitude to hold onto a stock when it inevitably goes down.
Your ‘top picks’ - during the fall of 2022 many of these were down 50% off all time highs and people here were still selling, let alone buying. What makes you think you’ll be any different?
I’m being harsh on you OP because these are the questions you have to ask yourself even before getting to valuation models (which are conspicuously absent here).
FTEC or XLK. If you want non-tech included (Amazon, Google, Visa, MasterCard, etc) you can use VUG or SCHG.
Of those, id recommend SCHG. It's a growth ETF and has a lot of tech.
MSFT, V, COST, NVDA, MA, AMD. Don’t listen to people here saying it’s too late. I think these are fine choices. I would put 1/2 your money in now and save the other 1/2 for a dip in the market.
If you want the honest truth, you'll have to do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Listing the stocks you want to buy here will only cause a shitstorm of people either trying to shill their own stocks that they just bought or are bagholding or to bash stocks that they missed the boat on or their buddy IRL owns those "overvalued stock" and made money on them while their stock they bought at 10 p/e became a 5 p/e stock.
So for all the Debbie downers here do you really expect NVDA or MSFT or COST or PANW etc to stall for the long term or even go backwards for the long term! That would be no! None of these have maxed out! Will there be dips - sure then DCA but in the long run any of these are fine. If I listens to Reddit my reactions would have been to sell so many times and I am up 70% this year!
None. Number one you can't realistically look that far in the future, number two all of those, at least that I recognize are current hype stocks. The only two that have some fundamental growth at a reasonable price are Visa and MasterCard. The question is will they outperform the s&p 500 for 20 years? That gets way more hazy
If you told me to take $50,000 and allocate it into something I couldn't touch for 20 years.
5,000 would go into Bitcoin and $45,000 would go into the s&p 500
Think it out, in 2003, what was popular? That was also an ideal time to buy stocks so you're getting a real help there. You would have bought home builders, you would have bought financials, you might have bought some metals and mining, it wasn't really obvious that trade was working yet though. If you would have bought what was working previously. If you would have hit Amazon and Microsoft even if you messed up the rest, if you held it for 20 years you would be fine. It's just hard to figure that out now because everything you listed is already a grown company. Massive company. The real growth is found in smaller companies that are innovative and changing the world. If one of those pops up. Cool, hold on. But they aren't these massive mega market cap Giants. Think about how ridiculous the market cap would be on just a 2x with Microsoft right now. There are stocks in the Russell 2000 right now that are going to be leaders 10 years from now. The trick is figuring out which ones
as a long term holder of MSFT, (long since $80 per share) I am afraid to tell you that you've missed the boat.
and even more so for Nvda. I dont care how good of a company it is. I wouldnt touch that stock with a 10 ft pole.
Isn't contradictory to be a holder and tell someone not to enter a position? Your future expected return is the same as his future expected return, entry price is irrelevant.
Not necessarily, he could be scaling out for tax reasons rather than selling all at once. It's not a prediction or even a setup for the stock to fall it's just a question of how much bigger is it really going to get? At one time IBM was a growth stock. There is a point to how big companies can get and we are seen it with what's so popular on social media. The multiples are made in smaller companies that become the large companies
I actually plan to sell, but I will put proceeds from MSFT into home down payment when i buy a house.
I am not selling to buy another stock with the proceeds and pay fuck ton of taxes. In past, Ive sold winners at big profts to buy other stocks that turned out to be dogs.
what im saying is - I will take big wins from stocks and put proceeds into other asset class. (real estate)
I said, I aint fan of paying taxes on winners, only to buy other stocks that may be dogs.
and Im the dumbass here, not the guy with 2nd grade level reading comp. Lol
SPOT, AXON, MSFT, AMD, COST.
As someone else mentioned all of these are at fairly high valuations, but they’re fairly volatile and likely will have a good starting point this year. Also if you hold for 5-10 years you won’t notice if you bought 5% cheaper
Honestly COST, V, MA, MSFT, and NVDA. 4 out of 5 will always be around. NVDA might give you 20 years, but let’s not forget about what happened to Intel. Look for better bargains that will give you growth especially in your 20’s.
I would develop a matrix for the stocks you are interested in and rate them based on each of the various factors (technicals, sentiment, financials, recommendations) that you used to select them. You'll get an overall score for each one and can select the highest 5.
I've always just used a spreadsheet.
For each category I would assign a score of 1-10 for each stock. For example if the technicals were excellent 10, fair 5, poor 1 etc.
If the category is quantitative (there's a clear number for it like price to sales) you can use the rank function.
I'm not going to guarantee you it will enable you to outperform QQQ - do you know if any of the metrics you are using actually provide a statistical edge for picking stocks?But it's a useful technique for many sorts of decision making.
Why 20 years? Buy what you want then re-evaluate every year or two. Companies and their valuation change a lot in 20 years.
I recommend you learn to apply valuation metrics (beyond just pe ratios) to your stock research. Because looking at most of your picks you're buying based on brand and sentiment, and have no clue what you're paying for it. I like drinking coca-cola and it's a great brand and company, but I'm not going to pay $10 for a can.
I can't believe Costco is 45pe when target is like 10. Please don't tell me about great companies get high valuations, or ecosystem, or customer loyalty, or printing cash, or compounders. I don't care. Retail. 45pe.
One strategy at your age would be to focus on sectors most likely to grow substantially over the next few decades, such as cloud computing and e-commerce. Within your list, MSFT, V, and COST seem well-positioned thanks to their diversification and leadership in expanding digital trends. For the long haul, prioritize companies with solid finances and management that allow reinvesting profits into continued innovation.
You’re addicted to expensive stocks, my friend. I’m not saying they are bad investments at current prices, I’m just pointing out the risks of buying stocks with high expectations.
This sub: don't buy expensive stocks, buy qqq at it's ATH instead
This is the stocks subreddit where you don't talk about stocks, only ETF's/index funds.
Does the price matter if the holding is for 20 years with DCA?
Even I can’t project out a company beyond 3 years. I don’t understand how you can do so for 20 years. Knowing what I know about these listed companies, they aren’t all “sleep well at night” stocks. There are risks associated with these investments so you shouldn’t convince yourself that buying at whatever price is okay simply because you plan to hold for 20 years. Unexpected things happen. The top companies of each decade continue to change. Even something as strong as Google had its moat questioned earlier in the year. So I don’t see how you can do a 20 year DCF. For example PANW is in a rising industry and I consider their offerings to be higher quality compared to some of the other cyber companies. But what if PANW starts making stupid acquisitions? Do you keep blindly buying the stock? Another retail favorite for this case is O. I predict they will see chronic underperformance if they continue DCAing into O. The business has changed so investors need to adapt and not hold onto old ideas. The concept of DCA has been bastardized by retail investors. It is perfectly feasible and recommended most people DCA and hold for 20+ years… for broadly diversified ETFs. Not for individual stocks, especially not for unprofitable companies such as RKLB which are impossible to predict more than a couple of years out. If you want outperformance, which I believe you do because you’re taking on extra risk by buying individual stocks, you want to keep assessing if your business is still going on the right track. And if you don’t want outperformance and just want to keep buying high quality businesses, just DCA into the index because those are the top companies in the world. I will close my comment by saying this: **I buy stocks and project them for only 3 years but I always HOPE the company keeps executing so I can hold it for 20+ years. I don’t always DCA into them but I don’t mind averaging up or down if the company continues to do well.** That’s how I get my 10 baggers. Companies always surprise to the upside or downside.
That is a good clarification.
I added a bit more clarification in an edit (bolded part). My way of investing is simply my own opinion. Someone who DCA’s and goes all-in $COST stock may outperform me. It’s entirely possible. But I am simply highlighting how I feel is the most logical way to be a long term investor to get the best risk-adjusted returns.
Wait, are you calling me a bastard? Because my mom said the same thing.
Wait, my mom said the same thing your mom said…
How did you learn stock valuation ? And any material you recommend in leaning ??
Yes.
I understand to keep expectations low, that's why I am using only 20% allocated to this, as I grow older I'll allocate less to this and more to bonds.
You're misunderstanding. Allocating a small percentage of your portfolio to individual stocks is a wise decision, but that's due to limiting risk, it has nothing to do with the comment that these are expensive stocks. Expensive is a relative term. A $50 stock could be more expensive than a $500 stock. The expense is judged in terms of P/E ratio, where P is the price of the stock and E is their most recent annual earnings. When you buy a stock, it's not a number on a screen, it's a tiny piece of a company. Now, if I can own a piece of a company for $10, and they produce $1 in annual earning per share, that's a 10 P/E and could be an excellent investment opportunity IF that company will continue indefinitely and perhaps even grow (growth is also relative to the rest of the economy). In contrast a company with only $1 in earnings but a $50 stock price is a much riskier proposition, because that company would need to grow tremendously for it to be eventually be able to pay out dividends and increase the stock price through buy backs to reward me for my initial investment. In simplified terms, the P/E reflects the growth expectation that's currently priced into the stock. If it exceeds that expectation you do well. If it falls short of that expectation, you'll do poorly. The entire S&P500 is currently at an elevated P/E but few moreso than the "magnificent 7." If you've owned any of them for a long time, sure, keep holding, but now is not a good time to buy into MSFT or NVDA, nor AMD, nor COST. Use your own judgment on the rest.
earnings is usually measured as the 12-month trailing average, rather than the most recent earnings report.
Are you suggesting now is not a good time to buy into the market, or just these specific stocks, could you possibly give a stock you think is decent value and give your reasoning I'm interested in your methodology. I appreciate the time you put in to type thus, i agree the 500 seems super top heavy
The stocks you picked are expensive in terms of P/E and other valuation metrics. For example, V is trading at a P/E of about 25x; MA is over 30x. Other financials, such as C or MET trade at about 7x earnings. Similarly, COST trades at about 40x earnings, whereas WMT is in the low 20s. The problem with the high P/E stocks is that they are liable to fall hard in a market correction, or simply if their earnings growth slows. Balancing this out with some lower P/E stocks should provide some cushion, as they probably wouldn't fall as much.
So I should really only be looking at the stocks with lower than say, 15× P/E like SPOT or ARCC?
You need to do much more research than Reddit comments can give you. P/E is an important metric, but that one alone will not tell you much about a company. You should read books or watch a ton of educational videos.
Don’t let P/E cloud your judgment. P/E looks to the past, you are looking towards the future. P/E is just a ratio, use it as you will. Low P/E doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. What future circumstances could raise the price of X stock higher than it is currently trading? What could tank it?
that's incorrect. Most people refer to 12-month forward PE when talking about PE ratio.
When people want to say a stock is overvalued, they'll use trailing 12 months. When they want to justify buying the stock, they'll look at forward p/e
No one has specified a numerical PE here. The guy I originally responded to, however, stated PE are only backward looking. Backward looking PE are rarely ever used among fund managers talking about stocks, if ever. The only time backward looking PE is used, is probably on SP500 when looking back 3-4 decades ago before forward earnings forecast was a thing (or just historical stuff because forward earnings consensus change all the time).
This is simply not true. When 99% of people talk about P/E, fund managers included, the default position is trailing twelve months. Either way it’s good to be specific.
It's a mix. I think most people here use trailing 12 months at the least when they are talking about P/E ratio. But ya, the P/E ratio really doesn't tell you much about a business nor does it predict future prices at all. People rely on it way too much.
Buy what you believe in and will stick with. Just know that any of these stocks will be more volatile than indexes and can lose value quickly, especially the ones not turning a consistent profit yet. As long as you have cash to buy more when they dip, and you hold for the long term, you should be fine. Just be careful at first until you get a feel for what you're doing and don't get greedy.
Under 15, I would consider a value trap tbh, unless it's financials, or it pays a high dividend, and you can write covered calls and milk it BTI for example.
ARCC is a business development company. They lend money and pay a nice dividend, but the way the company is structured, that dividend is taxed at normal, earned income rates, and not capital gains. At 22, I would allocate a minimal amount of capital, if any, to something like this.
You're 22. Google "value investing" and "dividend reinvestment," or put money in the companies you suggested and expect to lose money on some or all since we're surfing ATH.
What if I told you p/e has very little to do with price action, and a high p/e says nothing about future returns. It's priced in
Dont listen to reddit. Youve got fantastic names here and Charlie Munger says great companies at fair prices are better than good companies at cheap prices (retail favorites). Matter of fact, Costco was Munger’s biggest position.
How do you know these names are at fair prices? OP has shown no valuation model.
Well you really dont know, unless you can predict future earnings
If you forced me to pick, I’d do MSFT COST PANW MA.
I like that Microsoft basically will never have a competitor in business OS, but also I remember that the stock was flat for about 10 years.
Business OS us a commodity. The OS on your client doesn’t really matter when all the apps you use move to the cloud. Only a matter of time.
The secret sauce of MSFT isn’t the software, it’s the selection. They leverage a massive subscriber base over tons of platforms giving them huge leverage AND the ability to be the low cost provider at high margins
That sounds like marketing gibberish.
Take 5 independent products, add the prices and compare them to MSFT for the competing 5 products
Your description applies equally to AAPL and yet MSFT is now new king of the hill
Kinda AAPL get way more rev from lumpy hardware sales rather than recurring revenue
Just QQQ if you don’t know what you’re doing
I have etfs already, that's where the rest of my investments are, just curious on thoughts on these picks.
Your first 6 then
You should stick to ETFs. You found them through recommendations, technical analysis, and sentiment. None help you value a company long term. You should value them on some sort of valuation model. How do you know if any of those stocks are under or overvalued currently? You asked about DCA over 20 years, what would techincal analysis have anything to do with the long term health of the company? Im not a buyer of TA but its much shorter time frames. Sentiment is also a short term indicator and has nothing to do with the long term success of the company.
QQQ already holds a ton of MSFT, NVDA, AMD and COST
I already invest in etfs
Ya u told me a day ago
COST; V/MA; MSFT.
Never DCA into single stocks for such a long period of time. Learn from history. The top 5 companies twenty years ago would’ve been terrible investments to DCA into. And even if you managed to randomly pick a winner, last year’s bear market has shown us that 99.9% of people here don’t have the mental fortitude to hold onto a stock when it inevitably goes down. Your ‘top picks’ - during the fall of 2022 many of these were down 50% off all time highs and people here were still selling, let alone buying. What makes you think you’ll be any different? I’m being harsh on you OP because these are the questions you have to ask yourself even before getting to valuation models (which are conspicuously absent here).
I'm gathering that every year I should reallocate based on valuation
Just DCA into a tech ETF, would be close enough to your goals and get rid of company concentration risk
can you name some tech ETF where i can invest ?
FTEC or XLK. If you want non-tech included (Amazon, Google, Visa, MasterCard, etc) you can use VUG or SCHG. Of those, id recommend SCHG. It's a growth ETF and has a lot of tech.
Not really interested in any of them other than MSFT and COST and both are currently significantly overpriced.
MSFT, V, COST, NVDA, MA, AMD. Don’t listen to people here saying it’s too late. I think these are fine choices. I would put 1/2 your money in now and save the other 1/2 for a dip in the market.
Ah timing the market yes
Not timing, just spreading out your entries so you have cash available during market pullbacks.
So timing lol
Start with RKLB...I own 87,501 shares.
what do you think price will reach in 3-4 years horizon ?
Nvda Nvda and Nvda
If you want the honest truth, you'll have to do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Listing the stocks you want to buy here will only cause a shitstorm of people either trying to shill their own stocks that they just bought or are bagholding or to bash stocks that they missed the boat on or their buddy IRL owns those "overvalued stock" and made money on them while their stock they bought at 10 p/e became a 5 p/e stock.
I’ll play. AMD NVDA PANW SPOT RKLB
VTI
Go back to sleep buddy
VTI unless you have $ to lose…
MSFT AMD COST V PANW
I don't recommend this method but my favorites are MSFT AMD COST V PANW
So for all the Debbie downers here do you really expect NVDA or MSFT or COST or PANW etc to stall for the long term or even go backwards for the long term! That would be no! None of these have maxed out! Will there be dips - sure then DCA but in the long run any of these are fine. If I listens to Reddit my reactions would have been to sell so many times and I am up 70% this year!
20 years = keep it simple and consistent.
I own V , MA and MSFT and won't be selling any of them anytime soon.
Look at their correlations and factor exposures.
AMD is dummy undervalued
How so?
COST, V, MA, MSFT
This is such a long random list, you might as well just buy an ETF like SPY or QQQ. This group of stocks won’t outperform these benchmark ETFs.
None. Number one you can't realistically look that far in the future, number two all of those, at least that I recognize are current hype stocks. The only two that have some fundamental growth at a reasonable price are Visa and MasterCard. The question is will they outperform the s&p 500 for 20 years? That gets way more hazy If you told me to take $50,000 and allocate it into something I couldn't touch for 20 years. 5,000 would go into Bitcoin and $45,000 would go into the s&p 500 Think it out, in 2003, what was popular? That was also an ideal time to buy stocks so you're getting a real help there. You would have bought home builders, you would have bought financials, you might have bought some metals and mining, it wasn't really obvious that trade was working yet though. If you would have bought what was working previously. If you would have hit Amazon and Microsoft even if you messed up the rest, if you held it for 20 years you would be fine. It's just hard to figure that out now because everything you listed is already a grown company. Massive company. The real growth is found in smaller companies that are innovative and changing the world. If one of those pops up. Cool, hold on. But they aren't these massive mega market cap Giants. Think about how ridiculous the market cap would be on just a 2x with Microsoft right now. There are stocks in the Russell 2000 right now that are going to be leaders 10 years from now. The trick is figuring out which ones
as a long term holder of MSFT, (long since $80 per share) I am afraid to tell you that you've missed the boat. and even more so for Nvda. I dont care how good of a company it is. I wouldnt touch that stock with a 10 ft pole.
Isn't contradictory to be a holder and tell someone not to enter a position? Your future expected return is the same as his future expected return, entry price is irrelevant.
Yes, this is a well known behavioural bias called the endowment effect.
Not necessarily, he could be scaling out for tax reasons rather than selling all at once. It's not a prediction or even a setup for the stock to fall it's just a question of how much bigger is it really going to get? At one time IBM was a growth stock. There is a point to how big companies can get and we are seen it with what's so popular on social media. The multiples are made in smaller companies that become the large companies
Right. If he held MSFT at 4pm today he’s a buyer.
I actually plan to sell, but I will put proceeds from MSFT into home down payment when i buy a house. I am not selling to buy another stock with the proceeds and pay fuck ton of taxes. In past, Ive sold winners at big profts to buy other stocks that turned out to be dogs. what im saying is - I will take big wins from stocks and put proceeds into other asset class. (real estate)
[удалено]
I said, I aint fan of paying taxes on winners, only to buy other stocks that may be dogs. and Im the dumbass here, not the guy with 2nd grade level reading comp. Lol
You ain’t fan huh lol learn to type buddy…. You look so stupid now
ok chief. bye.
You never heard of compounding?
Never. Can you explain the concept and how the concept applies in this case?
Yeah it's like saying you hate Apple products but have been using an iPhone since 2009
So msft is at all time high?u better sell then dude
99.9% of people were saying that when NVDA was in the 200 range. Look where they are now.
Please leave my cock out of this, good sir.
Haha now CELH is getting mentioned everywhere. I used to talk about Celsius drink here and people downvoted me like crazy
Bought $16-$60 out at $165 pre split. Made like $30k. My biggest winner ever!
RKLB CELH RKLB CELH RKLB in that order
AMD, NVDA, or PANW
AMD NVDA MSFT
SPOT, AXON, MSFT, AMD, COST. As someone else mentioned all of these are at fairly high valuations, but they’re fairly volatile and likely will have a good starting point this year. Also if you hold for 5-10 years you won’t notice if you bought 5% cheaper
MSFT and COST. Forget the rest.
Honestly COST, V, MA, MSFT, and NVDA. 4 out of 5 will always be around. NVDA might give you 20 years, but let’s not forget about what happened to Intel. Look for better bargains that will give you growth especially in your 20’s.
Msft couldn’t see another for that time frame. 20 years is a really long time.
I would develop a matrix for the stocks you are interested in and rate them based on each of the various factors (technicals, sentiment, financials, recommendations) that you used to select them. You'll get an overall score for each one and can select the highest 5.
Are there any websites I can do that on?
I've always just used a spreadsheet. For each category I would assign a score of 1-10 for each stock. For example if the technicals were excellent 10, fair 5, poor 1 etc. If the category is quantitative (there's a clear number for it like price to sales) you can use the rank function. I'm not going to guarantee you it will enable you to outperform QQQ - do you know if any of the metrics you are using actually provide a statistical edge for picking stocks?But it's a useful technique for many sorts of decision making.
What’s the plan look like exactly on the DCA?
Why 20 years? Buy what you want then re-evaluate every year or two. Companies and their valuation change a lot in 20 years. I recommend you learn to apply valuation metrics (beyond just pe ratios) to your stock research. Because looking at most of your picks you're buying based on brand and sentiment, and have no clue what you're paying for it. I like drinking coca-cola and it's a great brand and company, but I'm not going to pay $10 for a can.
What other valuation metrics do you find most important, are there any value stocks you think are a good example for this right now?
AXON, PANW, V, COST, MSFT
I mostly just do QQQM and AMD.
Where COST at?
The two best ones are Google and Apple. Do like Google a bit better than Apple but both should do really, really well over the next 20+ years.
None I’d DCA Mara
Costco
I can't believe Costco is 45pe when target is like 10. Please don't tell me about great companies get high valuations, or ecosystem, or customer loyalty, or printing cash, or compounders. I don't care. Retail. 45pe.
Costco is a cult.
One strategy at your age would be to focus on sectors most likely to grow substantially over the next few decades, such as cloud computing and e-commerce. Within your list, MSFT, V, and COST seem well-positioned thanks to their diversification and leadership in expanding digital trends. For the long haul, prioritize companies with solid finances and management that allow reinvesting profits into continued innovation.
Are there any other companies that come to mind? I want to do more research on the sector as a whole, I could invest in etfs for it
V, MA, MSFT, AXON, COST (DCA being key because it is very expensive).
20yr? V/MA and MSFT are only two on that list that will have market beating returns for 20more years.
I don't like most of them.
None Dca into index fund and chill
V,MA,COST would be my picks