5 ms·

Whenever I start to think like this, I remind myself that it's about as useless as thinking "if only I bet it all on 00" at the roulette table. Crystal balls t

by sbov 10y ago

Whenever I start to think like this, I remind myself that it's about as useless as thinking "if only I bet it all on 00" at the roulette table. Crystal balls that see the future are certainly in short supply. But if I had one there's a lot better ways to make money than using it to buy 10 shares of Apple 20 years ago.

coldtea 10y ago
>Crystal balls that see the future are certainly in short supply. Yes, but Apple, from 1999 until Jobs died at least, and for some time more, gave people opportunity after opportunity to buy a constantly sky-rocketing stock. If someone didn't see it with the first iMac (1999 IIRC), they should have seen it with the iPod. If not, then with the iPhone. They had many chances to buy that stock.
- ehsankia 10y ago
  Yes, but again, this is in hindsight. For all you knew back then, it could crash at any time, and any other company could also skyrocket. The point is, right now, any of the hundreds of startups you see just starting now /could/ potentially be the next Facebook. Statistically, most won't be. But of course in 20 years, you won't remember thinking about buying stocks for all the companies that failed. You'll only remember how you once considered buying stock fort his one company that is huge now.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >Yes, but again, this is in hindsight. For all you knew back then, it could crash at any time, and any other company could also skyrocket. That's the same for every company, so it's a moot point. What would the lesson from that be? Nobody has a crystal ball, so nobody should invest in any stock? Since investing does happen, and is based on signs and trends, what I'm saying is that Apple gave many of those repeatedly, and if someone didn't see a revived company when the original iMac came out, and then OS X 10.0, and then the iPod, and then the iPhone, and then the iPad, etc, then they only have their selves to blame.
hyperpallium 10y ago
Yall being unfair to GP. His dad had the impulse at the time.
njharman 10y ago
That's an utterly ridiculous comparison. Companies / stock prices are not a normal, random distribution like roulette results. There are masses of information available on companies / stock market. Assuming roulette wheel is fair, there is none other than 1/32 chance known.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- function_seven 10y ago
  Please tell me what ticker symbol I should buy today, that will rise in value over 10,000% over the next two decades. Nobody can. Over a 20 year timeline, it’s essentially the same as a roulette wheel.
  - njharman 10y ago
    That is disingenuously retarded and trollish. You seriously can't fathom that knowing financials, track record, ceo, products, pending deals, etc. etc. gives you more information than random chance? How do you make any informed choice about anything at all then?
    - function_seven 10y ago
      I can fathom it, but not on a 20-year timeline. The market prices stocks with all the information available. It's not perfect obviously, but it's better than any other price-generation algorithm that lacks a crystal ball. I you happen to have a unique perspective that the rest of the market lacks, then you can invest in that stock and make a good return. But 20 years out, the hypothetical "I wish I had bought AAPL in 1996" is just as useless as the "I wish I had bet on green" comparison. In this scenario, it's an apt comparison. Anyone making an informed choice in 1996, knowing financials, track record, ceo, products, pending deals, etc. etc. would have stayed the hell away from AAPL
- PacketPaul 10y ago
  Actually a lot of people believe they are a random distribution. There is a great book "A Random Walk Down Wallstreet" which explains it. The basic idea is the market is efficient (the Efficient Market Theory) and all information about the stock is alreay priced into the stock. Picking a stock to beat the market average is basically a random chance.

by sbov 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago

>Crystal balls that see the future are certainly in short supply. Yes, but Apple, from 1999 until Jobs died at least, and for some time more, gave people opportunity after opportunity to buy a constantly sky-rocketing stock. If someone didn't see it with the first iMac (1999 IIRC), they should have seen it with the iPod. If not, then with the iPhone. They had many chances to buy that stock.

ehsankia 10y ago
Yes, but again, this is in hindsight. For all you knew back then, it could crash at any time, and any other company could also skyrocket. The point is, right now, any of the hundreds of startups you see just starting now /could/ potentially be the next Facebook. Statistically, most won't be. But of course in 20 years, you won't remember thinking about buying stocks for all the companies that failed. You'll only remember how you once considered buying stock fort his one company that is huge now.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >Yes, but again, this is in hindsight. For all you knew back then, it could crash at any time, and any other company could also skyrocket. That's the same for every company, so it's a moot point. What would the lesson from that be? Nobody has a crystal ball, so nobody should invest in any stock? Since investing does happen, and is based on signs and trends, what I'm saying is that Apple gave many of those repeatedly, and if someone didn't see a revived company when the original iMac came out, and then OS X 10.0, and then the iPod, and then the iPhone, and then the iPad, etc, then they only have their selves to blame.

hyperpallium 10y ago

Yall being unfair to GP. His dad had the impulse at the time.

njharman 10y ago

That's an utterly ridiculous comparison. Companies / stock prices are not a normal, random distribution like roulette results. There are masses of information available on companies / stock market. Assuming roulette wheel is fair, there is none other than 1/32 chance known.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
function_seven 10y ago
Please tell me what ticker symbol I should buy today, that will rise in value over 10,000% over the next two decades. Nobody can. Over a 20 year timeline, it’s essentially the same as a roulette wheel.
- njharman 10y ago
  That is disingenuously retarded and trollish. You seriously can't fathom that knowing financials, track record, ceo, products, pending deals, etc. etc. gives you more information than random chance? How do you make any informed choice about anything at all then?
  - function_seven 10y ago
    I can fathom it, but not on a 20-year timeline. The market prices stocks with all the information available. It's not perfect obviously, but it's better than any other price-generation algorithm that lacks a crystal ball. I you happen to have a unique perspective that the rest of the market lacks, then you can invest in that stock and make a good return. But 20 years out, the hypothetical "I wish I had bought AAPL in 1996" is just as useless as the "I wish I had bet on green" comparison. In this scenario, it's an apt comparison. Anyone making an informed choice in 1996, knowing financials, track record, ceo, products, pending deals, etc. etc. would have stayed the hell away from AAPL
PacketPaul 10y ago
Actually a lot of people believe they are a random distribution. There is a great book "A Random Walk Down Wallstreet" which explains it. The basic idea is the market is efficient (the Efficient Market Theory) and all information about the stock is alreay priced into the stock. Picking a stock to beat the market average is basically a random chance.