KO worst day in years

[nooby_mcnoob]

A stock price can move that amount with no difficulty over 2-3 days.

Listen man. If you consistently know how to find stocks that are going to move 10-12% in one or two weeks, show me a pay stub and I'll quit my job right now and come work for you.

 

[tsznecki]

I don't have a dog in this fight but I'm confused why it has to be either or.

Some people can't/won't/don't care to look at a price chart and/or trade a ticker. They buy those throwing off dividends and go about their business.

There's also liquidity. It shows your trading account size when people say they could flip equities in 2-3 days for 5% (LOLOLOL @themickey your a fucking joke) vs a pension fund who is allocating a 10B portfolio.

 

[themickey]

Listen man. If you consistently know how to find stocks that are going to move 10-12% in one or two weeks, show me a pay stub and I'll quit my job right now and come work for you.....

I'll show you that when you can show me dividend stocks guaranteed to pay you 10-12% pa.
In the meantime my words were..."A stock price can move (5%) that amount with no difficulty over 2-3 days."
Try your best now not to create a straw man argument.

 

[nooby_mcnoob]

I'll show you that when you can show me dividend stocks guaranteed to pay you 10-12% pa.
In the meantime my words were..."A stock price can move (5%) that amount with no difficulty over 2-3 days."
Try your best now not to create a straw man argument.

Do you think this answer makes you any more credible? Tell me how you consistently find and capture 5% moves

 

[themickey]

Do you think this answer makes you any more credible? Tell me how you consistently find and capture 5% moves

You may be missing the point....
Here's an example....and a very real live one which is actually happening.
An investor wishes to invest a couple million $$$ and goes to a financial advisor who charges $5k pa for this advice...and this was just recently some months ago.
"Invest your money in these bluechip stocks, Telstra, Woodside and the big 4 banks etc".
The reason these conservatve stocks were chosen is because financial advisor is clueless brain dead and thinks these stocks will bring a good return.
These stocks pay a high dividend but run on low PE's because they are dead in the water, 'has beens' and because he thinks they have potential.
Alas, as the share price drops the dividend % return increases, PE decreases making them look a bargain.
Meanwhile I buy shares with a total disregard to the fact I will receive a dividend and my shares rocket up (which they bloody well do) because I have chosen stocks on a completely different metric.
Getting 5% return per week on a stock is very common in my portfolio, 5% a day is also very common.
While for the brain dead stocks, over the year they basically go nowhere, year on year but pay 5% dividend, whoopee.

 

[nooby_mcnoob]

You may be missing the point....
Here's an example....and a very real live one which is actually happening.
An investor wishes to invest a couple million $$$ and goes to a financial advisor who charges $5k pa for this advice...and this was just recently some months ago.
"Invest your money in these bluechip stocks, Telstra, Woodside and the big 4 banks etc".
The reason these conservatve stocks were chosen is because financial advisor is clueless brain dead and thinks these stocks will bring a good return.
These stocks pay a high dividend but run on low PE's because they are dead in the water, 'has beens' and because he thinks they have potential.
Alas, as the share price drops the dividend % return increases, PE decreases making them look a bargain.
Meanwhile I buy shares with a total disregard to the fact I will receive a dividend and my shares rocket up (which they bloody well do) because I have chosen stocks on a completely different metric.
Getting 5% return per week on a stock is very common in my portfolio, 5% a day is also very common.
While for the brain dead stocks, over the year they basically go nowhere, year on year but pay 5% dividend, whoopee.

So what you're saying is advice from "experts" is no good. I agree. Still doesn't prove your case one way or another.

 

[themickey]

So what you're saying is advice from "experts" is no good. I agree. Still doesn't prove your case one way or another.

Ok, I'm done trying to make this any clearer, thought it was obvious.
Tell us your point of view.

 

[nooby_mcnoob]

Ok, I'm done trying to make this any clearer, thought it was obvious.
Tell us your point of view.

The only situation in which dividend investing does not make sense is lack of company and dividend growth. But don't believe me, look at the post krugman put up: https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/ko-worst-day-in-years.329874/page-2#post-4807712

Clearly shows that there are strategies that can work.

 

[themickey]

The only situation in which dividend investing does not make sense is lack of company and dividend growth. But don't believe me, look at the post krugman put up: https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/ko-worst-day-in-years.329874/page-2#post-4807712
Clearly shows that there are strategies that can work.

Buy & hold investing is great when the market is in a bull market and I stick with my premise...

...Now if a stock price tanks during the year, you have lost usually more than 5% because most investors are buy & hold.
The only reason I can see to buy dividend paying stocks is because compared to those that aren't, divvy stocks are more stable, easier to trade, most often bounce on support as fund managers are supporting them. Divvy stocks are often stable predictable type trading stocks. Therefore a trader is better trading these vehicles but not buy & hold blindly for the sake of a pissy little dividend.

 

[nooby_mcnoob]

So you're saying it sometimes doesn't work ,ok