Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 50% Gains Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: masa who wrote (45845)	4/26/2006 11:39:29 PM
From: Paul Senior	Respond to of 118717

>>following about 2000 stocks. I don't believe anyone can do it thoroughly enough, I mean really understand them all.<< No, no one can do it thoroughly or understand them all. However, I question whether thoroughly is a necessary requirement for success. In other words, just how thoroughly is thoroughly enough? For me, I say I can follow 8000 or so stocks fairly easily, because I can dismiss 7800 as immediately unsuitable for me as a buy. For people who are "thorough" and require great understanding of their company before they make a commitment to the stock, then their use of stops seems like they don't have that much confidence in their commitment. Or take foreign stocks so popular on this thread. How many people here are close enough and astute enough to follow foreign accounting, foreign laws, business culture, competition, etc. to say they have researched a Norwegian or South African or British company so thoroughly as to truly understand it? I'd wager most of the people buying such stocks here are more following Dale Baker and just making a cursory view and approval of the stocks he is buying. Nothing wrong with that; I'm just suggesting that there's a continuum of "thoroughness" and "understanding" and that many people besides me might be on the lower end of that, and down there, there are a lot more stocks that can be followed than otherwise would be presumed.