| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2021 5:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| boggsman1 wrote: | | Sure...Tesla is worth $820 Billion US dollars , and Elon is flip flopping with Jeff Bezos as the world's richest man. Any more questions? |
Boggsy, You wrote that just a few weeks ago. TSLA is worth $540bn today, and still dropping after hours. A 35% drop. Perhaps this will help you understand why I would rather hold XOM than some of your favorites, and why I have always regarded TSLA valuation with great suspicion. The price may well bounce back, but it is still significantly overvalued. BTW, XOM has doubled in value since I bought it for my grandkids accounts nearly a year ago.......and they will continue to enjoy a 9% dividend yield. Not bad for someone who you told us has been wrong for a decade. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mrgybe
I made the same investments at the same time. XOM, CVX, Phillips, ENB. But, my best was Whirlpool which tripled in value. There were a LOT of big returns to make if you invested in mid-March last year after the crash. Had I purchased Tesla on that same date, my $90 purchase would still be $600 a share.
You might have known what you were doing. I didn't. I just timed the market during a time of strife just like I did on 911 and in 2009. Those who have disposable income can make plays like that when things are tanking. I could claim I'm clever. But, mostly, I was opportunistic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2021 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well.......TSLA is $563 today, but that's not the point. In retirement I don't want massive volatility. That's precisely what Tesla and similar "valley" stocks bring. I want unexciting shares in well run companies that will be around long after I'm gone. Boggsy has interpreted that strategy as being "wrong". Perhaps it is for him; it is not for me and is quite deliberate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2021 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | Well.......TSLA is $563 today, but that's not the point. In retirement I don't want massive volatility. That's precisely what Tesla and similar "valley" stocks bring. I want unexciting shares in well run companies that will be around long after I'm gone. Boggsy has interpreted that strategy as being "wrong". Perhaps it is for him; it is not for me and is quite deliberate. |
You couldn’t more wrong Mr .Gybe, but it’s certainly amusing to see you chirp after the big reversal .. We own PXD, CVX, FANG, and many many “old economy “ stocks .. And we also are long tech to the gills .. My view has also been to own a diversified basket .. But XOM at $60 is where it was in 2005, so go ahead and pat yourself on the back , maybe Vlad Tenev will pitch your account ...
I’ll also add that XOM has been one of the worst total return stocks in the Dow in the past 20 years .. Chevron management has out -executed them in a big way ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2021 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| boggsman1 wrote: | | You couldn’t more wrong Mr .Gybe, but it’s certainly amusing to see you chirp after the big reversal... |
Boggsy, Once again you completely miss the point. When/ if you gain a little more wisdom, you may come to understand that many people are fine with modest, no stress returns, that will enable them to live comfortably for the rest of their lives. But do keep the disparaging comments up. Your smugness and myopia are so appealing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J64TWB
Joined: 24 Dec 2013
Posts: 1685
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2021 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I’m not a smart guy but would one call $90-$60 no stress? Wouldn't that be called an index fund? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2021 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | boggsman1 wrote: | | You couldn’t more wrong Mr .Gybe, but it’s certainly amusing to see you chirp after the big reversal... |
Boggsy, Once again you completely miss the point. When/ if you gain a little more wisdom, you may come to understand that many people are fine with modest, no stress returns, that will enable them to live comfortably for the rest of their lives. But do keep the disparaging comments up. Your smugness and myopia are so appealing. |
"No -Stress" ..you're kidding right? I have elderly clients who have held Exxon for decades. Last Summer when oil went negative, and Exxon faced a legitimate dilemma about reducing the dividend, the stock touched the twenties. I would not describe that as "no-stress", anything but, sir. But, keep up the clueless commentary, its been over a decade now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2021 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| J64TWB wrote: | | I’m not a smart guy but would one call $90-$60 no stress? Wouldn't that be called an index fund? |
How about $60-$100-$30-$60 , in 15 years ? During the same period the market Tripled... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
techno900
Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 09, 2021 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
And on the nuttier side:
| Quote: | California lawmakers consider bill banning boys, girls’ toy, clothing sections at major department stores.
March 8, 2021latestnews
The California state legislature is considering a bill that would ban larger department stores from having separate “boys” and “girls” sections for toys and clothing.
Assembly Bill No. 1084 was introduced on Feb. 18 and remains in committee, where state lawmakers are weighing whether to allow separate sections for children’s clothing sections based on gender, but keep the gender neutral requirement for toys, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The bill, as it was first co-written by Assembly members Evan Low and Christina Garcia, would “require a retail department store with 500 or more employees that sells child care items, children’s clothing or toys, to maintain undivided areas of its sales floor where the majority of those items being offered are displayed, regardless of whether an item has traditionally been marketed for either girls or for boys.”
It would prohibit the use of signage within each undivided area indicating that particular items are for either girls or for boys. If a retail department store places “a child care item, an article of children’s clothing, a toy, or anything that could be considered a combination thereof,” in an area of its sales floor outside of the undivided areas where the majority of like items are sold, the bill “would prohibit the use of any signage with respect to the item that indicates that it is either for girls or for boys.”
The bill “would also require a retail department store located in California that maintains an internet website through which it sells child care items, children’s clothing or toys, to dedicate a section of the site to the sale of those items and articles that is titled, at the discretion of the retailer, ‘kids’, ‘unisex’ or ‘gender neutral,’ as specified.” |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
