WWE

[Ed B]

I have been a subscriber of the WWE network for a couple of years.... for the grand kids of course. But seriously, I am lucky to be a big part of my grand kid's lives, ages 6, 11, 11, 13. I have taken them to some live events here in the DFW area and we get together to watch the big events like Wrestle Mania, Summer Slam, etc. So following the idea of investing in what you use I took at look at WWE a while back and starting following it's financial news. It has exploded over the past year before I even considered investing in it.

I finally puled the trigger on a small purchase a little over a month ago at what I was concerned could be its high-water mark at about $58/share. Since then the financial news regarding imminent TV deals with FOX (over the air) and with international partnering has gotten better and better. It is up about 10% since I purchased it. No way I would have put a big stake in it but with 20-20 hindsight it is easy to 2nd guess that.

[marko]

I owned WWE back when it was paying a 10% dividend. Then they dropped it down and I lost interest and sold. A well run company from what I remember.

[aaronc879]

I haven't been following the stock price but I have followed WWE(WWF) as a fan for 30+ years. They are a growing internatonal company. Just got almost $2 Billion worth of TV broadcasting fees. The price may be a bit high right now but it is still worth considering for a long term investment.

[Ed B]

Update.

I bought at $58 & change in May. It is now at $83 & change with projections for $100.

It has been a fun ride so far.

[jazz4cash]

Might be a great way to get the grandkids interested in business/finance.

[Ed B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazz4cash Might be a great way to get the grandkids interested in business/finance.

Good point. I might look for a teachable moment during #SummerSlam to put the show on pause and discuss the business side of the company. I am sure I will have their full attention. Haha!

[OldShooter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazz4cash Might be a great way to get the grandkids interested in business/finance.

Ack! Might as well take them to casinos. Individual stock picking by amateurs is statistically a loser's game (ref Charles Ellis: "Winning the Loser's Game.")

A year or so ago I was talking to a TDAmeritrade branch manager and I asked her how their amateur traders did. She got a kind of sheepish look on her face and said "Last year, about 1.5%" This would have been without considering survivorship bias which would almost certainly pushed the number into negative territory. And in 2016 the indices were up 10-15% without considering total return including dividends.

The signal is so noisy that it's common for people like the OP to get lucky, but the overall statistical picture is very clear. What we don't see is the part of the picture where people lose money, because they don't post. Nassim Taleb calls this the problem of "silent evidence."

[Ed B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldShooter Ack! Might as well take them to casinos. Individual stock picking by amateurs is statistically a loser's game (ref Charles Ellis: "Winning the Loser's Game.") A year or so ago I was talking to a TDAmeritrade branch manager and I asked her how their amateur traders did. She got a kind of sheepish look on her face and said "Last year, about 1.5%" This would have been without considering survivorship bias which would almost certainly pushed the number into negative territory. And in 2016 the indices were up 10-15% without considering total return including dividends. The signal is so noisy that it's common for people like the OP to get lucky, but the overall statistical picture is very clear. What we don't see is the part of the picture where people lose money, because they don't post. Nassim Taleb calls this the problem of "silent evidence."

I think most of us here know that single stock picking as a strategy is a losing game. And yet we have a forum to discuss market timing and stock picking. I stumbled on this stock and decided I like this gamble more than the casino or cryptocurrency.

Leaving it on black for a few more rolls....

[OldShooter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed B ... Leaving it on black for a few more rolls....

Oh, I think that's fine. It's a lot of fun and you get reinforcing dopamine shots when things go well. (Jason Zweig "Your Money and Your Brain") BTDT and still remember some wonderful dice rolls, though at that time I thought it was skill.

The key here is that you know exactly what you're doiing.

But I think that introducing kids to investing through stock picking is a major disservice. Really, just like taking kids to the casino or encouraging them to spend their allowances on lottery tickets.

[Red Badger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldShooter Oh, I think that's fine. It's a lot of fun and you get reinforcing dopamine shots when things go well. (Jason Zweig "Your Money and Your Brain") BTDT and still remember some wonderful dice rolls, though at that time I thought it was skill. The key here is that you know exactly what you're doiing. But I think that introducing kids to investing through stock picking is a major disservice. Really, just like taking kids to the casino or encouraging them to spend their allowances on lottery tickets.

Why not consider letting kids invest a very modest amount in WWE (or other individual stock) and a larger amount in an index fund? I fully agree that stock picking, market timing, etc is a loser's game. While I may be a pure buy and hold, broad market guy, I see no harm in folks putting a few percent in individual stocks (but I never would). I think jazz was suggesting a process to generate youth interest in the magic of investing, not stock picking as a strategy.

[OldShooter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Badger Why not consider letting kids invest a very modest amount in WWE (or other individual stock) and a larger amount in an index fund? I fully agree that stock picking, market timing, etc is a loser's game. While I may be a pure buy and hold, broad market guy, I see no harm in folks putting a few percent in individual stocks (but I never would). I think jazz was suggesting a process to generate youth interest in the magic of investing, not stock picking as a strategy.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. To me, using stock picking to teach investing is a little like buying lottery tickets to teach statistics. I guess you can do it, but the likelihood of misunderstanding is high.

I also really hate the frequent newspaper "stock picking" contests where the lucky winner is anointed as a genius stock picker. The thing is, there are several million people, from Merrill to Motley Fool to Barron's, whose paycheck depends on the masses being fed and believing the stock picking myth. “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair, 1935

[Ed B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Red Badger Why not consider letting kids invest a very modest amount in WWE (or other individual stock) and a larger amount in an index fund? I fully agree that stock picking, market timing, etc is a loser's game. While I may be a pure buy and hold, broad market guy, I see no harm in folks putting a few percent in individual stocks (but I never would). I think jazz was suggesting a process to generate youth interest in the magic of investing, not stock picking as a strategy.

And what I would talk to the kids about would be why this company's fortunes are on the rise and why that makes them a good investment this year. Lots of business and economic factors at play. Of course that lesson would include what can turn the whole thing sour.

I have my oldest grandson's money in a total market fun (ITOT).

[OldShooter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed B And what I would talk to the kids about would be why this company's fortunes are on the rise and why that makes them a good investment ...

HONK! HONK! HONK! Fallacy alarm!

A good company is not necessarily a good investment. It depends on the price. And, generally, growth companies are NOT good investments because too many people believe this fallacy and pay too much for the stock.

Jeremy Siegel in "Stocks for the Long Run" refers to this as the "grown trap" and uses IBM to illustrate how, beginning in the 1950s, an exciting and successful growth company's stock is out-performed by more prosaic companies.

[Bigdawg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldShooter Oh, I think that's fine. It's a lot of fun and you get reinforcing dopamine shots when things go well. (Jason Zweig "Your Money and Your Brain") BTDT and still remember some wonderful dice rolls, though at that time I thought it was skill. The key here is that you know exactly what you're doiing. But I think that introducing kids to investing through stock picking is a major disservice. Really, just like taking kids to the casino or encouraging them to spend their allowances on lottery tickets.

I disagree. I let my DS drink beer at home when he was 16. I wanted him to taste it so that his 21st birthday would be a non event. He is a successful 25 yr old Marine, single with no alcohol incidents. On our trip cross country we stopped in Vegas and I introduced him to black jack. When he goes now he takes a set amount (usually $200) and if he loses it he is done. Sometimes he walks away in 15 minutes broke. Other times he walks away 6 hours later with 3K in his pocket. He understands that it is just entertainment. I have about 5% of my stash in individual stocks. I do research and watch them closely. A few misses. Over all just below market return. But it is fun for me. Most of the successful people in my extended family were introduced to the market by being given individual shares of various company's (Disney comes to mind). Mine was GE back in the day. One cousin got IBM.

[Ed B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldShooter HONK! HONK! HONK! Fallacy alarm! A good company is not necessarily a good investment. It depends on the price. And, generally, growth companies are NOT good investments because too many people believe this fallacy and pay too much for the stock. Jeremy Siegel in "Stocks for the Long Run" refers to this as the "grown trap" and uses IBM to illustrate how, beginning in the 1950s, an exciting and successful growth company's stock is out-performed by more prosaic companies.

In this individual instance it is not a fallacy.

[OldShooter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed B In this individual instance it is not a fallacy.

Only time will tell. I hope you're right.