26 ms·

You're taking a couple of exceptions and deduct that fundamentals don't matter. That's like taking two people who smoke and reached 90 without cancer and assume

You're taking a couple of exceptions and deduct that fundamentals don't matter. That's like taking two people who smoke and reached 90 without cancer and assume cancer studies are fools errand.

PartiallyTyped 6y ago
AMD in 2015. NVDIA same period. Literally all the positions of Citron that Andrew Left missed the mark with over an order of magnitude difference. Many tech companies.
- tinyhouse 6y ago
  Here's a quote from your guy DFV: "Well as a longer-term investor I have the benefit of heavily discounting daily moves. I care much more about the longer-term charts, and these have been fairly constructive for months now. Even today, after the typical quarterly sell-off, the longer-term chart still looks decent so there’s been nothing to panic over. Let’s see what the price does over the next few weeks. Of course charts are only a minor part of the equation in my opinion. The fundamentals are much more important in a situation like this."
  - PartiallyTyped 6y ago
    Simply saying 'fundamentals' allows one to nullify things they don't understand, like owning the rights to one of the biggest duopolies (x86 that without one becomes a monopoly). The issue with tech, much like math, is that it often takes a while to figure out all the potential, case in point GPGPUs and Deep Learning revolution. The tech, the ideas, the internal code/models, the people (Jim Keller in AMD, and TSLA) are all catalysts that can't be quantified in the same way as traditional 'fundamentals' are treated.
    - tinyhouse 6y ago
      I don't argue with that. It's called growth opportunities. But don't you think that a business losing customers quarter after quarter is a bad sign? Or that having a debt bigger than it can afford? etc. Let me say this, you cannot ignore the fundamentals until you can... (e.g., GME)
      - PartiallyTyped 6y ago
        I would counter with the fact that humans ignore - either by their own accord, or through the unjustified belief that things will continue to be the way they were - the views that do not support the narrative they decided is true or they deem unlikely. Case in point, who in their right mind thought a bunch of self proclaimed smooth brains would hold and not panic against ladder attacks and FUDs? The smooth brains have been in the game as much, they have seen their capital dropping to 0 more than the HedgeFunds are accustomed to losing at their own game. A hedge fund with capital and influence, capable of controlling the narrative, could and tried to decide the outcome of their bet based on their bet, we saw this with TSLA as well. They believed, like most people, that GME would go bankrupt, they didn't consider the bull case [1] because things had been going down for so long, but GME's revenue is periodic, bringing us back to the fallacy. Things are how they are until they are not, and the inability to adapt due to logical fallacies becomes evident. There's a reason why reasonable people in WSB suggest an investor should know both cases by heart, if you can not afford to control the narrative, you can not direct the behavior of the market. [1] www.gmedd.com
        tinyhouse 6y ago
        I agree that humans ignore the views that do not support the narrative they decided is true or they deem unlikely. I'm not following how is that relevant. I do agree that fundamentals (for whatever it means) are not sufficient for success. In the end of the day, investments are based on speculations about the future. The reason the fundamentals matter is that they provide some guidance for your speculations. The basis which you can build your narrative upon. Sometimes they can mislead you, often things happen you missed or couldn't predict (e.g., a pandemic), etc. Finally, I also agree (if that's what you meant) that some narratives people follow are not based on fundamentals, but rather based on their biases or whatever someone else may have told them. But if you ask me such investments fail more often than not.
runarberg 6y ago
idk. sometimes the skeptics are right. An easy grab is lobotomy. The studies showed that lobotomy is a good way to tread psychological issues, and doctors mostly agreed. However the premise of “treatment” was flawed. Turns out that the skeptics that pointed to the cases where lobotomy didn’t actually treat the patient were right. Perhaps economists are basing these so called fundamentals on a false premise.

You're taking a couple of exceptions and deduct that fundamentals don't matter. That's like taking two people who smoke and reached 90 without cancer and assume cancer studies are fools errand.

PartiallyTyped 6y ago

AMD in 2015. NVDIA same period. Literally all the positions of Citron that Andrew Left missed the mark with over an order of magnitude difference. Many tech companies.

tinyhouse 6y ago
Here's a quote from your guy DFV: "Well as a longer-term investor I have the benefit of heavily discounting daily moves. I care much more about the longer-term charts, and these have been fairly constructive for months now. Even today, after the typical quarterly sell-off, the longer-term chart still looks decent so there’s been nothing to panic over. Let’s see what the price does over the next few weeks. Of course charts are only a minor part of the equation in my opinion. The fundamentals are much more important in a situation like this."
- PartiallyTyped 6y ago
  Simply saying 'fundamentals' allows one to nullify things they don't understand, like owning the rights to one of the biggest duopolies (x86 that without one becomes a monopoly). The issue with tech, much like math, is that it often takes a while to figure out all the potential, case in point GPGPUs and Deep Learning revolution. The tech, the ideas, the internal code/models, the people (Jim Keller in AMD, and TSLA) are all catalysts that can't be quantified in the same way as traditional 'fundamentals' are treated.
  - tinyhouse 6y ago
    I don't argue with that. It's called growth opportunities. But don't you think that a business losing customers quarter after quarter is a bad sign? Or that having a debt bigger than it can afford? etc. Let me say this, you cannot ignore the fundamentals until you can... (e.g., GME)
    - PartiallyTyped 6y ago
      I would counter with the fact that humans ignore - either by their own accord, or through the unjustified belief that things will continue to be the way they were - the views that do not support the narrative they decided is true or they deem unlikely. Case in point, who in their right mind thought a bunch of self proclaimed smooth brains would hold and not panic against ladder attacks and FUDs? The smooth brains have been in the game as much, they have seen their capital dropping to 0 more than the HedgeFunds are accustomed to losing at their own game. A hedge fund with capital and influence, capable of controlling the narrative, could and tried to decide the outcome of their bet based on their bet, we saw this with TSLA as well. They believed, like most people, that GME would go bankrupt, they didn't consider the bull case [1] because things had been going down for so long, but GME's revenue is periodic, bringing us back to the fallacy. Things are how they are until they are not, and the inability to adapt due to logical fallacies becomes evident. There's a reason why reasonable people in WSB suggest an investor should know both cases by heart, if you can not afford to control the narrative, you can not direct the behavior of the market. [1] www.gmedd.com
      - tinyhouse 6y ago
        I agree that humans ignore the views that do not support the narrative they decided is true or they deem unlikely. I'm not following how is that relevant. I do agree that fundamentals (for whatever it means) are not sufficient for success. In the end of the day, investments are based on speculations about the future. The reason the fundamentals matter is that they provide some guidance for your speculations. The basis which you can build your narrative upon. Sometimes they can mislead you, often things happen you missed or couldn't predict (e.g., a pandemic), etc. Finally, I also agree (if that's what you meant) that some narratives people follow are not based on fundamentals, but rather based on their biases or whatever someone else may have told them. But if you ask me such investments fail more often than not.

runarberg 6y ago

idk. sometimes the skeptics are right. An easy grab is lobotomy. The studies showed that lobotomy is a good way to tread psychological issues, and doctors mostly agreed. However the premise of “treatment” was flawed. Turns out that the skeptics that pointed to the cases where lobotomy didn’t actually treat the patient were right. Perhaps economists are basing these so called fundamentals on a false premise.