View Single Post
Old
07-12-2013, 12:36 PM
  #28
Baggers
Registered User
 
Baggers's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: Thailand
Posts: 1,562
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
I'll just respond to your post because I already raised what Hoogaar raised.

People have an odd view in terms of what represents potential. Of what represents possible return.
The natural way to look at this is in terms of stock value. Which company holds higher value? The close to blue chip stock from a firm with proven track record, with attractive quarterly statements, returns, that are actually established and selling a reputable product and that is traded in all the big stock floors. Or the upstart prospective stock based on a potential play, a potential return, and not yet traded, not earning, and not going to be even traded on the markets for a considerable time.

Which stock do you buy now? Which stock do you hold. Which stock do you think has the greater probability of return now, and in the future.

People really underestimate how much better the established play is. Some more Warren Buffet reading would be in order. He values good established stocks, always has, and has always been a great investor.


Man this board is in love with prospects. Theres a whole lot of bre-X trading going on.


What this plays on is that the fantasy thought of what a player could be, i.e. a prospect, is sexier than what is actually in hand. Even if the player in hand holds considerable value. Even if the player in hand went 28 games scoring 28pts. Or had an 8pt NHL game. Its odd that that player holds no value, holds no prospect of increased value, by many posters in this thread, even though his value is established and clearly rising.

The whole poll suggests hive thought and everybody rushing to buy the same stock.
Replacement, I love the Bre-X analogy (and after reading your post, I think we're probably from the same generation), but I have a much different opinion to stock valuation than you do.

As an investor, you don't get rich investing in blue chip stocks once they're already established as being blue chip. Yes, you'll get your steady returns and dividends (until they fall off the map), but if you want to get extraordinary returns in the stock market you need to identify which companies have the potential to become blue chip stocks before they hit maturity.

So... back to hockey.

If you were to tell me that Gagner is worth more than Klefbom at the moment because he is a proven commodity, I would agree with you - but, that doesn't mean that Klefbom isn't worth equally as much (or more) to the team in terms of asset value (and I'm pro-Gagner much like yourself).

Baggers is offline   Reply With Quote