Yes, in my view, doesn't much matter. However, it's jmo - I could be wrong. I wouldn't want to discourage anyone here from posting long/deep missives about their ideas of valuation and business regarding their stock research.
I believe it's a false presumption though that more effort and more research on particular stocks gives an advantage, gives better portfolio performance. It may indeed give more confidence about a particular stock. I assume this leads to owning relatively few stocks - that the time required for deep investigation is limited to a few stocks, or that the confidence one gets from one's study leads to making bigger bets on just those few stocks that one has investigated favorably. And so that will or should increase the results that one might get from a more diversified portfolio. However, if one turns out to be wrong in the evaluation and buying, then the concentrated portfolio takes a corresponding relatively larger hit. More risk then for more reward -- imo.
I read SeekingAlpha for stock ideas. I'm always amazed at how much effort goes into researching and writing long data-filled articles where the author concludes the stock is an excellent buy/cheap stock and yet doesn't own any shares of the company. I ask myself, are these people just writing to get paid or for ego? Are they, like MotleyFool seemed to be, newly minted English or philosophy majors with not a dollar to invest? My point -- finding, thoroughly analyzing and recommending a stock is only part of the story. If you don't have skin in the game, if you're not able to hold on during the vagaries of the market or as other stock stories show up and seem to offer even better opportunities, all that research is for nothing.
Of course, all this jmo. |
