The Long Term Investor

Even though I am a LONG TERM investor.....there are also a few times in this thread that I have done.....VERY FEW...... short term MOMENTUM trades. Usually associated with a stock split.

At times something comes up that I believe creates a....."PROBABILITY"......for gains......and I might take a short term chance.....usually a MOMENTUM trade.....but....that is a very rare event.


There might be......(I think from memory).... about 3 times I have done MOMENTUM trades in this thread......I think 2 were successful and 1 was a failure.

 

Yeah SMCI was one of the greatest company and stock collapses I have seen in a long time.

I was very lucky to sell pretty quickly and move the money over into NVDA.....with a small loss. it was a training wheel position so that helped me. AND those shares of NVDA are strongly positive.....so......all is well that ends well.

BUT....yeah....that stock sucks.

 

No one is perfect as an investor.....in fact....perfection is not necessary. If you are right with your strategy.....like being a long term investor.....you will do just fine.

Like I said above.....I dont expect every stock I buy to end up making the cut. That is why I usually start with a smaller position to try the stock and see if I like it as a holding.

I like what TireSmoke put up above....especially the part about....fail fast and minimize losses. I try to be a DECISIVE buyer when I have a stock that I want to add.....and.....I also try to be a decisive seller when something is not working out. My view is, if a position is not living up to expectations....SELL IT ALL NOW. I dont wait to try to make back my initial investment. I dont wait for a better sell point. SELL......and move on.

When I sell something I ALWAYS look at it as.....not a loss.....but....as a lateral move of the money into another stock market vehicle.

 

Here is the always....distorted and unreliable jobs data. No doubt it will be revised to death over the coming months.

US job openings rise in October, layoffs decrease

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-job-openings-rise-october-151910917.html

(BOLD is my opinion OR what I consider important content)

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. job openings increased moderately in October while layoffs declined, suggesting the labor market continued to slow in an orderly fashion.

Job openings, a measure of labor demand, had risen 372,000 to 7.744 million by the last day of October, the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics said in its Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey, or JOLTS report, on Tuesday.

Data for September was revised lower to show 7.372 million unfilled positions instead of the previously reported 7.443 million. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast 7.475 million vacancies. Hires fell 269,000 to 5.313 million. Layoffs decreased 169,000 to 1.633 million.

Hurricanes and strikes distorted the labor market in October. With rebuilding underway in the areas devastated by the storms and the strikes at Boeing and another aerospace company having ended, a sharp acceleration in job growth is anticipated in November.

A Reuters survey of economists estimated payrolls increased by 200,000 jobs last month after rising by only 12,000 in October, the fewest since December 2020. The unemployment rate is forecast to tick up to 4.2% from 4.1% in October.

The closely watched employment report for November, which is due to be released on Friday, is among the critical pieces of data that could determine whether the Federal Reserve delivers a third consecutive interest rate cut this month amid lack of progress in lowering inflation back to the U.S. central bank's 2% target."

MY COMMENT

What worthless garbage this report always is. The most important item in the story above is the....REVISION....of the last report by.....OVER.....70,000 jobs.

I dont trust or care about any of this jobs data. It is corrupt, distorted and obviously manipulated. The WORST of the economic data.

Even if accurate.....no...I dont invest according to economic data. this material might be of interest to traders.....but long term investors.....useless.

 

I have been looking.....but....I am not seeing any significant news for PLTR today. The stock is Up by $3.62....or a whopping 5.45% today. Why? I dont know....but I will take it.

This is all I am seeing so far:

"Palantir has received FedRAMP High Authorization for its cloud services, allowing it to support U.S. government missions.

This new authorization expands Palantir’s capabilities to handle highly sensitive unclassified workloads across federal agencies."

https://www.benzinga.com/news/legal...g-on-with-palantir-technologies-stock-today-9

 

I appear to be having a good day so far today.....in spite of all the big averages being down. BUT.....most of my gains and losses today are very MILD. It seems to be a vague day in the markets without a lot of excitement or big movement.

The current slight gains and losses....tell me that today is still totally up in the air in terms of the close.

It is a LOW and SLOW news day today in the financial world.

BUT......in the real world....everyone seems to be in a good mood and out there shopping and preparing for Christmas.

We have NOW fully recovered from the pandemic. It took years to do so. People are excited for the future and feeling good. It "FEELS" like an EPIC Holiday shopping season.

 

From a business and investing stand point I hope this is TRUE.

Go woke, go broke is real. It's time for American businesses to get back to basics
American businesses can finally put a stake in the heart of stakeholder capitalism

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/go-woke-go-broke-real-its-time-american-businesses-get-back-basics

(BOLD is my opinion OR what I consider important content)

"Horror writer Stephen King once wrote "sooner or later, everything old is new again." Since Donald Trump’s reelection, U.S. stock markets and investor confidence have been on a tear. The reason is simple. After a decade of companies apologizing for not being progressive enough on causes ranging from the environment to diversity initiatives to support for Palestine, investors know corporations can once again unapologetically focus on delivering value for shareholders.

The horrors of stakeholder capitalism are finally over.

In 1970, famed economist Milton Friedman wrote that "there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."

Over the next 44 years, American business focused on shareholders. Their European counterparts did not. Across the pond, Europeans embraced stakeholder capitalism — which is something of a misnomer, since it isn’t really capitalism at all. It’s a theory, propagated by Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum, that holds that the purpose of a corporation is to maximize value for all stakeholders — community members, activist groups, non-profits, government agencies, etc. — not just shareholders.

Stakeholder capitalism, which isn't capitalism at all, was pushed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its founder and executive chairman, Klaus Schwab. (Reuters/Arnd Wiegmann)

American capitalism produced superior stock market returns and broad-based societal gains. The U.S. GDP has grown 16 times since 1975; Europe has grown just 11 times. Per capita income tells a similar story, with U.S. per capita income dwarfing Europe by a ratio of almost 2:1.

But improving people’s fortunes wasn’t enough for many progressive institutions. After the Great Recession, European sovereign wealth funds, Ivy league endowments, blue state pension funds and ESG promoting asset managers like BlackRock demanded American companies earn their social "license" by using corporate power to shape society in ways these elite, left-leaning institutions felt wise.

The stakeholder camp was especially emboldened when Trump first took office and pulled out of international agreements like the Paris Climate Agreement and UN Human Rights Council. Business was now supposed to do the work government would not. In response, the Business Roundtable, a group of 200 CEOs of U.S. companies, radically changed the purpose of a corporation in 2019. Now, businesses had a "fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders," not just shareholders alone.

The impact was immediate. American businesses were at the mercy of progressive stakeholder activists that were much noisier than the everyday shareholder.

Oil and gas companies could no longer focus on providing affordable, reliable and abundant energy sources to the American public. Instead, they had to apologize to activist groups for their carbon emissions and construct net-zero goals without concern for what future energy needs might be.

Internet companies could no longer connect social graphs of people online and provide a public square to debate ideas. Now, they were forced to apologize for "misinformation" and "hate speech" on their platform, the definition of which varied depending on the political cause du jour.

Consumer companies, from beer companies to entertainment powerhouses to retailers could no longer simply advertise their wares. Instead, they had to apologize for not being diverse, equitable, or inclusive (DEI) and bow to organizations like the Human Rights Campaign, which demanded more LGBTQ+ marketing campaigns and gender transition guidelines.

Companies could no longer support the military or the police. Instead, companies began apologizing for their role in perpetuating systemic racism and donating hundreds of millions of dollars to organizations like Black Lives Matter to pay tithes.

But the tides have turned. The aims of stakeholder capitalism to produce maximum returns with maximum societal benefits was fantasy. The outcome was more akin to horror. Companies wasted billions of dollars on stakeholder-favored ESG and DEI programs that didn’t deliver shareholder value, and in many cases, destroyed it. Nor was society any better off. Inflation was high, wage growth was low, and consumer confidence was muted. Society was more polarized than ever heading into the election.

But freedom is in sight. Looking ahead, companies are beginning to unshackle themselves from the burdens of stakeholders. Unpopular programs like ESG and DEI were already on life support prior to Trump’s election. Now the plug is being pulled. Trump signaled that he would eliminate ESG considerations in retirement plans and clamp down on ESG shareholder proposals. Companies like Tractor Supply, Harley-Davidson, Miller-Coors have already eliminated their ESG and DEI programs. And they did so without apology.

Markets are responding favorably. American capitalism is again on the rise. The old ways of doing business are new again. Hopefully, more companies will follow suit. The last thing the stakeholder capitalism horror series needs is a sequel."

MY COMMENT

Notice that I have avoided all the politics in the above article in what I put in BOLD. It is not the real point.

The REAL point is that "stakeholder capitalism".....is NOT capitalism at all. It is like talking about "communist democracy". Tacking the word capitalism onto some slogan or title does not make it legitimate capitalism.

it is NOT the role of private business to push social change or concepts. It is not the role of business to do anything but focus on making money for their business owners.

 

To emphasize the above......at least the content that is not political.

Milton Friedman’s Revenge

https://lawliberty.org/milton-friedmans-revenge/?mc_cid=be8a12420e&mc_eid=345c45bfca

(BOLD is my opinion OR what I consider important content)

"It’s rapidly becoming the received wisdom that an important reason President Trump won the 2024 election was because inflation matters. Too many hard-working families had seen their household budgets shrink, even as the federal government continued to engage in record levels of spending. In doing so, the Biden administration ignored the wisdom of the late Milton Friedman that central bankers always overcorrect at the sign of economic contraction. President Biden even made the connection explicit: “Milton Friedman isn’t running the show anymore.” But it turns out Friedman was right—increasing spending and printing money are a recipe for inflation, and voters hate inflation.

Friedman has been on the outs for a while. It’s nothing new for the left to deride him—as a Young Conservative in the UK in the ‘80s I would frequently be attacked as a “monetarist,” by people who had no idea what monetary policy was, such was his perceived influence over Margaret Thatcher. Leftists continue to this day to launch harsh broadsides against his memory. Yet recently, even self-proclaimed conservatives have consigned him to history in terms just as severe as Joe Biden.

Senator Josh Hawley, for instance, told the National Conservatism conference this year, “Now we need not the ideology of Rand or Mill or Milton Friedman, but the insight of Augustine.” Rusty Reno, the editor of First Things, criticizes him in his book, Return of the Strong Gods. Yoram Hazony invokes Friedman’s Free to Choose in The Virtue of Nationalism to critique it. And Compact Editor Sohrab Ahmari commented, “Whiney voice: But, but, but, what would Milton Friedman say?” when the Hungarian government instituted price controls, to which Ross Douthat of the New York Times responded, “He would say that this won’t work as intended, presumably.” (Spoiler: they didn’t.)

Another piece of Friedman’s advice has also been rejected in recent years by left and right, yet its validation may have contributed to Trump’s victory. It’s known as the Friedman Doctrine, the norm that the social responsibility of business is to increase profits. Friedman expounded his theory in the New York Times Magazine in 1970, in response to a growing number of businessmen who suggested that businesses had responsibilities to the wider community. Friedman responded, “Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.”

It was an old debate resurrected. In the 1930s, the New Deal exponent A. A. Berle and Harvard Law professor Merrick Dodd had a public back and forth over exactly this question, with Berle seemingly victorious in his claim that shareholder interests should be “subordinated to a number of claims by labor, by customers and patrons, by the community” over Dodd’s contention that businesses should only cater to shareholder interest. By 1970, however, there was growing concern that this emphasis on what became known as “stakeholder” interests had led to corporatism, with businesses exerting too much power over public policy.

The widespread acceptance of the Friedman Doctrine that followed Friedman’s article changed that for a while, but not for long. By the mid-1990s there was growing pressure on corporations to “do good,” particularly in relation to the environment. What the late economist David Henderson called a sense of “global salvationism” became an important motivator of corporate behavior. This was the idea that it was part of corporate meaning to help change the world.

This time the newer professions of management and accounting theorists got in on the act. Concepts like the “triple bottom line” and “corporate social responsibility” infiltrated business training and ethics courses. While under the Friedman Doctrine, simply existing as a business, providing goods or services, jobs, and profit, was seen as the appropriate role of the corporation in the social fabric, it became commonplace to assert that businesses had to “give back” to the community. Businesses had to divert profits to spending on community activities, something Friedman derided as a form of socialism.

Indeed, what was different from the New Deal version of stakeholder theory was that the basic conservative ethics of honoring contracts and doing no explicit harm to third parties was replaced by progressive ethics of actively aiding various special interest groups defined by left-wing activists. Stakeholders were no longer groups like employees and vendors, but more nebulous ideas like “the global environment,” which allowed leftist pressure groups to stand up as if they were the Lorax and claim to speak for them.

After the 2008 financial crisis, this gear shift went into overdrive. It was no longer simply corporate spending, but how corporations behaved internally. This evolved into what became known as ESG—environmental, social, governance—that acts as a set of corporate norms over how firms operate. For instance, in describing the social aspect, IBM says the standards refer to “the impact the organization has on people, culture, and communities and looks at the social impact of diversity, inclusivity, human rights, and supply chains.” This clearly goes far beyond local community and instead reflects the principles of global salvationism.

And then another controversy erupted in America over what was perceived as racially biased policing. That concern culminated in the Black Lives Matter movement, and another set of principles was widely adopted. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) was initially aimed at providing more equal opportunities. However, it quickly morphed into language—or even thought—policing and corporate struggle sessions.

These twin sets of policies soon went from internal practices to external. Businesses had to be seen to be exporting these values to their customers. So, the National Football League played two national anthems (the actual national anthem and the “black national anthem,” “Lift Every Voice and Sing”) at every game. Disney’s Star Wars explored the idea that the Jedi Knights were evil. Video game characters were rendered less attractive to young men for fear of catering to the “male gaze.” Restaurants stopped providing plastic straws in favor of soggy paper straws. And woke businesses started demanding that suppliers adopt the same woke standards and practices.

Meanwhile, government got in on the act. The Securities and Exchange Commission promoted rules for listed companies to enact ESG standards. The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission expanded its existing efforts to promote DEI. Every corporate and government effort, it seemed, was aimed at pushing business activity into political correctness.

Unfortunately for them, one group seemed wary of what was happening—consumers. NFL audiences dropped. Disney’s streaming service struggled amid claims of a “woke” agenda. Video games became a cultural battleground. Famously, Bud Light sales crashed following its attempt to use a trans influencer as a spokesperson. Firms like Lowes, John Deere, Ford, and even Meta dropped their political stances in response to consumer pressure.

The consumer backlash had a political effect. The weekend before the election, the New York Times admitted of these radical practices that “the brief era of their unquestioned dominance is now coming to an end.” Young men in particular, a group whose preferences were a target of many of these changes, came out to vote Republican in a reversal of previous trends.

We don’t yet have the data to demonstrate the electoral effect, but corporate behavior has been a major target of the cultural champions of young men like Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson. It should, however, now be obvious that catering to perceived stakeholders (often actually just more special interests, like the environmental movement) over customers is a bad business decision.

Corporate leaders made a bad bet by doubling down on ESG/DEI initiatives. It has hurt them financially and reputationally. Now they will face an administration that will do an about-face on these policies, questioning and investigating what once it encouraged.

It is time for the Friedman Doctrine to make a return. The business of business is business, and that is what helps consumers and civil society thrive, whatever the Harvard Business School says."

MY COMMENT

This crazy "stuff"......is in my view partially a result of the...."CELEBRITY CEO" movement. It has no place in the business world. Leave the social science concepts and politics out of business. It is bad enough that we have to ENDURE all the day to day politics......let the business world be free of the unproductive....business killing...."stuff".

In my ideal world....it is impossible to tell or know what the politics of any company management is.

 

I had a nice big gain today. Looks like the SP500 and the NASDAQ firmed up a bit as the day went on.

I had a single stock in the RED today.....GOOGL. My best performer today.....PLTR....up by 6.88% in a single day. the stock is now above $70 and making a fool of all the various experts that were saying it was going to drop.....at least for now. No guarantees.

AND....I beat the SP500 today by 0.92%.

 

I hate to even mention it....but....we appear to be in a SANTA RALLY at the moment. ANOTHER....new high for the SP500 today.

We were out and about today....stores were busy. One place we went was Target....what a disaster. The store was dirty, there was trash (cups, drink cans, etc, etc) in many of the carts. The shelves were picked over and a mess. It is as though they are trying to skimp by on minimal staff. I can see why the latest earnings were a disaster. In addition it was EMPTY. I would not hope for much better on the next round of earnings.

Yes....anecdotal and just based on a single store.....but....this was a very significant difference from the last time I was in that store about 6 months ago. Not at all what I would expect from Target. Of course....like lots of people we NEVER shop there anymore if we have a choice....which we always do.

 

GEE....I guess my SP500 prediction for 2025......6800 to 6900.....is being trashed.

Wells Fargo issues Wall Street's most bullish forecast yet for the stock market in 2025

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/well...t-for-the-stock-market-in-2025-203847212.html

 

A nice little article.......makes me imagine where NVDA will be in ten years.

Fast growers are common, fast compounders are rare

https://klementoninvesting.substack.com/p/fast-growers-are-common-fast-compounders

(BOLD is my opinion OR what I consider important content)

"In equity markets, companies get rewarded for growing their revenues and earnings faster than their competitors. But fast growth is easy to achieve for a year or two if the conditions are right. The true long-term compounders manage to grow at exceptionally fast rates for years if not decades. These ‘fast compounders’ are exceedingly rare.

To see what I mean look at the chart below. I have gone back to 1990 and checked how many companies in the US (S&P 1500 of the 1,500 largest companies in the US), the UK (FTSE All-Share) and Europe (Stoxx Europe 600) managed to grow their revenues by at least 10% in consecutive years.

Number of companies with consecutive >10% sales growth


Source: Panmure Liberum, Bloomberg

Practically all companies managed to grow their sales by more than 10% at least once in this 34-year period. Repeating this feat two years in a row is still extremely common. 1,420 of the 1,500 stocks in the S&P 1500 in the US managed to do that at least once. Similarly, 555 stocks in the Stoxx Europe 600 and 498 of the 561 companies in the FTSE All-Share did so as well.

But what about growing revenues by more than 10% for ten years in a row? Mind you this is an extraordinary feat because growing more than 10% for ten years in a row means that revenues have grown by at least 150% in a decade.

These fast compounders are quite rare. Among the 1,500 largest companies in the US, I found 137 (9.1% of the total) that managed that feat. In the UK, only 22 stocks (4.0%) and in Europe 24 stocks (4.0%) managed to do that.

The chart above also shows the two companies in each region with the longest streak of fast compounding. That’s Amazon in the US (24 years before the streak broke in 2022) and Netflix (23 years before it broke in 2022). In the UK, it is professional services and outsourcing company Capita (20 years from 1990 to 2009) and online retailer ASOS (17 years from 2005 to 2022). In Europe, it was another tech company that takes the top spot with Swedish accounting software company Fortnox (16 years since its IPO in 2007 and still unbroken). But I was surprised to see a good old-fashioned industrial company take silver in flow control company Aalberts.

The pure number of companies that manage to grow revenues at extraordinary pace for a sustained period is a bit misleading though, since I compare indices with different numbers of constituents. So, let’s look at the same chart expressed in terms of share of companies from the original cohort. As you can see there is a big ga between the US and Europe/UK insofar as US businesses are able to sustain very high revenue growth for much longer. After ten years about twice as many companies in the US have become fast compounders than in Europe or the UK.

Share of companies with consecutive >10% sales growth


Source: Panmure Liberum, Bloomberg

In defence of European and UK businesses my initial reaction was that this is still a somewhat unfair comparison. After all, if a country has faster nominal GDP growth, it should also have more companies with higher nominal sales growth. And Europe has lower nominal GDP growth than the US.

So, let’s look at sales growth in excess of nominal GDP growth. I have calculated the share of companies in each index that manage to grow revenues by more than 5% above nominal GDP growth for consecutive years. As the chart below shows, that lifts the European market a little bit, but nowhere near the US benchmark.

Share of companies with consecutive >5% excess sales growth above GDP


Source: Panmure Liberum, Bloomberg

In short, European markets have a growth problem, at least compared to the US. And as long as that growth problem persists, I think a valuation discount of European stocks to the US is warranted. But is the current valuation discount of more than 30% for the UK and more than 20% for the European market vs. the S&P 500 warranted? That is an entirely different question."

MY COMMENT

Interesting hindsight data. I will be very interested to see how NVDA does over the next 8-10 years.

 

SANTA rally mode is happening today. Nice gains in all the big averages.

Dow, S&P 500, Nasdaq gain as tech stocks lead, with Fed's Powell on deck

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/live...-lead-with-feds-powell-on-deck-143325943.html


(BOLD is my opinion OR what I consider important content)

"US stocks rose on Wednesday as techs helped set the stage for fresh record highs and investors waited to hear from Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for clues to what's next for interest rates.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average (^DJI) climbed 0.3%, or over 200 points, while the S&P 500 (^GSPC) added 0.3% on the heels of an all-time closing high. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite (^IXIC) gained around 0.9%.

Cloud and e-commerce giant Amazon (AMZN) hit intraday all-time highs on Wednesday, as did iPhone maker Apple (AAPL).

Salesforce (CRM) stock surged in early trading after the software maker's quarterly revenue beat boosted hopes for its artificial intelligence products. Shares of Okta (OKTA) and Marvell (MRVL) also jumped amid well-received earnings reports, setting a positive tone for techs.

Anticipation is building for Powell's appearance in New York later, with Wall Street keen to find out whether growing confidence in a December rate cut is justified. Fed officials have signaled support for more easing as they prepare for their final meeting of the year.

The central bank is widely expected to lower rates at its Dec. 18 meeting. Traders see near 74% odds of a 25 basis point cut, compared with around 66% a week ago, per the CME FedWatch tool.

A reading on private payrolls showed firms added 146,000 jobs in November, slightly below economist estimates, and a slowdown from the downwardly revised 184,000 jobs in the prior month. The ADP data suggests the labor market is softening — but not too much. The report is one of several key economic releases this week, leading into the all-important monthly jobs report on Friday.

Investors were also keeping a watchful eye on political turmoil in France after upheaval in South Korea pulled stocks there lower. French lawmakers will vote on a no-confidence motion that could bring down the government. Meanwhile, South Korea's president now faces impeachment after plunging the country into a political crisis by briefly declaring martial law.

In corporate news, UnitedHealth Group (UNH) halted its investor day after the CEO of insurance unit UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson, was fatally shot in Manhattan on Wednesday morning.

MY COMMENT

I dont think the markets care about POWELL......or France.....or S Korea today. They just want to group. Basically....AMERICA FIRST....markets today.

 

The Goldy-locks economic news today.

Private payrolls grew by 146,000 in November, less than expected, ADP says

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/12/04/pri...-in-november-less-than-expected-adp-says.html

 

I will look at my account later...but....I can see from my stock list that I have seven of nine stocks up in the SANTA RALLY today. My losers at the moment.....PLTR and HD.

It "feels" like a very strongly positive day in the markets today.

AND...it is happening in the face of the FED blabber and is ignoring a couple of foreign issues that would normally drive the markets down....France and S Korea.

 

My "favorite manager.....(tongue in cheek). You would think that the big gain that was an aberration in 2020 would be considered the distant past for this manager. BUT.....people owning this fund continue to IGNORE reality.

Cathie Wood buys $22.1 million of battered tech stock

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cathie-wood-buys-22-1-144050780.html

HERE is why I posted this little article:

"......The flagship ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK) , with $5.4 billion under management, has returned 13.56% year-to-date, with an annualized three-year return of -15.4% and a five-year return of 4.63%.

In comparison, the S&P 500 is up 28.4% this year through Dec. 2, with a three-year annualized return of 11.44% and a five-year return of 16.03%......."

MY COMMENT

The psychological and financial danger of going with a one year......one-hit wonder.....of a fund. Imagine the compound losses that are happening for the owners of this fund.

I cant believe that they are still siting on $5.4BILLION of investor money. We are now FOUR years beyond the one big year this fund had....2020. "Supporters see her as a visionary in tech investing"......you have got to be kidding. BUT.....to each their own.

An interesting experiment in investor behavior going on here. It is very difficult for true believers to let go and accept reality.

As usual.....I see her as an example of someone that claims to be a long term tech investor....but in reality.....trades like a maniac.

 

I was curious what the Ten Year Yield was doing today. With the markets today i was pretty sure it was down and yes.....it is at 4.19%