"My prime example: When Apple released the iPad it quickly became a great hit. For me it was obvious that a lot of cheap copycats would spawn soon. What would you use for a cheap iPad knockoff? An ARM processor for sure. Strategy: Buy ARM and hold for years. F"
Do you think that Wall Street hasn't figured that out?
Apple is one of the most watched stocks in the world. To the original commenters point: the banks have reams of 'technically astute' Analysts making those assessments, and much, much, more.
Wall Street has people all the way up and down Apple's value chain. They pay 'consultants' the world over to eek out any tiny bit of information WRT Apple's supply chain.
Again - I agree with the original commenter: individual traders are severely outgunned when it comes to these things and that's why they lose money.
Yes - theoretically, there are some very narrow areas where a savvy investor might be able to win, and surely, Wall St. has some gaping systematic problems ... but by enlarge, I agree with the sentiment of the analysis as well, even as other have pointed out flaws.
Investing is 90% gambling. The world only has so much GDP growth and there's not enough to go around to make every investor super happy. Most returns that an investor makes are someone else's loss. The losers are usually those with less information, or are lazy about it all (like some 'big dumb funds')
>Do you think that Wall Street hasn't figured that out?
Yes, I think Wall St hasn't figured that out. Sentiment regresses to the mean, and so do analyst expectations.
If Wall St had figured out what the iPad meant there would have been a huge rush towards ARM.
That didn't happen. There's your answer.
It's also worth pointing there's a big difference between tactical short-term trading and strategic long-term trading.
Short-term trading is not a winning option for non-professionals.
Long-term trading can be, because - here's the obvious point - most traders are looking for quick returns.
Unspectacular stocks with robust longer term returns tend to be systematically undervalued - more so if they're in a specialised technical niche not many people understand.
Conversely stocks with a good historical record but signs of a less robust future tend to be overvalued.
There's a huge amount of fashion and trend-following on Wall St. People who research fundamentals in depth - like Warren Buffet - are very much the exception.
You're assuming the research Wall Street publishes actually has anything to do with their own market positions, they do not. Research that an investment bank publishes is for customers; they work independently of their traders who have their own proprietary methodology and information sources.
"Do you think that Wall Street hasn't figured that out?"
"Wall Street", whoever that is on Wall Street, may have figured it out, but the stock doesn't instantaneously move to the correct value afterwards. There is a time lag where traders who are paying attention can still get in at a good price.
Do you think that Wall Street hasn't figured that out?
Apple is one of the most watched stocks in the world. To the original commenters point: the banks have reams of 'technically astute' Analysts making those assessments, and much, much, more.
Wall Street has people all the way up and down Apple's value chain. They pay 'consultants' the world over to eek out any tiny bit of information WRT Apple's supply chain.
Again - I agree with the original commenter: individual traders are severely outgunned when it comes to these things and that's why they lose money.
Yes - theoretically, there are some very narrow areas where a savvy investor might be able to win, and surely, Wall St. has some gaping systematic problems ... but by enlarge, I agree with the sentiment of the analysis as well, even as other have pointed out flaws.
Investing is 90% gambling. The world only has so much GDP growth and there's not enough to go around to make every investor super happy. Most returns that an investor makes are someone else's loss. The losers are usually those with less information, or are lazy about it all (like some 'big dumb funds')