BB: re: "Now even us small investors can compete on even footing with the large institutions"
Unfortunately, that's not true.
Yes, the internet has made a huge difference, and things are much better than they were two or ten years ago. Ten years ago, I would have listened to the evening business news ( 1/2 hour, on the days I got off work in time), and read the WSJ (takes about 10 days to get here), and read the quarterly reports. Now, I can listen to the conference calls, read the quarterly reports and the WSJ in real-time, and have access to all the data and insights of everyone on SI. A huge improvement.
However, I'm still getting the news late, and it has nothing to do with technology. Example: Recently, I watched my BSX drift down 10 points. I searched for news, and asked the BSX thread, but didn't find out until the stock had completed its dip. Then, a post told me BSX was probably going to make a large and dilutive acquisition. By the time the news was in the news, the stock had made its move. (it's back up now). Example: I watched Intel drift down down down. Couldn't find anything new to explain it. Bought some at 74. Posted a long message on the INTC thread saying that I was buying because I thought Merced would be bigger than Pentium. Then, two days after I bought, the news came out that they were delaying Merced. It turns out that Intel had been telling the large box-makers about the delay, for a week before it became public. Obviously, the news got out to some people, but not to me. I tripled my stake at 67, and it's now at 76.
Example: KLAC has been as weak as KLIC, evan though it's a much better company. Why? I won't buy KLAC till I know. Someone knows, and is acting on that knowledge.
It is not a level playing field, and I invest based on the assumption that the institutional buyers will get the news a few days or weeks before I will. |
