Autonomous Car Stocks
- Thread starter OneDay
- Start date
They are the future.
However, for me not as investment opportunity. Trailblazing companies are too risky for me. For every Apple there is a Nokia. Worse, even for every Apple (90s) there is an Apple (since the IPhone).
Once upon a time, railroads and airplanes were the future. Many a fortune was destroyed there, very few were made by public investing. So I leave it to entrepreneurs and VCs. Be there before the IPO, or don't be there at all.
However, for me not as investment opportunity. Trailblazing companies are too risky for me. For every Apple there is a Nokia. Worse, even for every Apple (90s) there is an Apple (since the IPhone).
Once upon a time, railroads and airplanes were the future. Many a fortune was destroyed there, very few were made by public investing. So I leave it to entrepreneurs and VCs. Be there before the IPO, or don't be there at all.
OldShooter
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
As @Totoro implies, a good business is not necessarily a good investment. Over time, growth stocks have been poor investments. This is Jeremy Siegel's "growth trap." The problem is that everyone knows they have upside potential, so the prices fully reflect that, even to the point of undue optimism.
And, in general, whatever stock you are buying or selling you are trading with a professional (I have read 95% odds). That professional knows more about the company that you do and has access to vastly more information and resources than you do. So if he's selling, why are you buying? And vice versa.
So unless you have private information that is not known in the market trading stocks like this is really gambling. You are betting (on a buy) that some unknown future thing will occur which causes the market's perception of the stock value to rise above its current point. Ditto on the sell side, you're betting that some unknown future event will cause the market to to reduce its opinion of the stock's value. The problem with growth stocks is that most of the possible future upside events are already reflected in their prices, hence there is more downside than upside. Conversely, the reason value stocks are generally better investments (over long periods of time) is that most of the possible negative events are already reflected in the stock price, so there is more upside than downside.
Siegel's "Stocks for the Long Run" is still a pretty good read IMO. Dr. Harry Markowitz, inventor of modern portfolio theory, offers his opinion here: https://youtu.be/TbMjIn1p-i0
Similar threads
