Jump to content

Jurgis

Member
  • Posts

    6,042
  • Joined

  • Last visited

3 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Jurgis's Achievements

Rookie

Rookie (2/14)

  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Dedicated
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. "No politics on CoBF" is dead. Good job @Parsad * it's not just this thread. It's pretty pervasive.
  2. And this has been different for the last 10+ years of almost zero inflation how?
  3. Incident at Loch Ness - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374639/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0 10/10
  4. FSPHX is not really growth. It's mostly old medical and pharma. Good fund historically, but not shoot out the stars growth. Well, since you asked: https://cathiesark.com/ JAMFX I would respectfully ask to move any ARK discussion into ARK thread that exists somewhere. I'd rather AI thread not become ARK thread.
  5. I am wrong person to ask about biotech. Every time I tried to get into it, I found out that the amount of material is huge and it is very hard to get a deep insight into it. I think I'm gonna defer to FSPHX for old med/pharma and XBI for the new bio. I agree with your comments about valuations, pricing power risks, expirations, etc.
  6. Sure, at some point SP100 captures any big wave. Because it is based on SP500, it missed TSLA for a long time, so maybe that's a ding a bit for both SP100 and SP500. My comment about biotech was more in terms of individual company investing and not indexes/ETFs. Leading non-bio AI companies are pretty clear. Leading bio AI companies are way less clear at this point IMO. That might be a reason for funds/etfs.
  7. OK. I am aware of your bullish thesis on VZ and the attraction of spectrum. I am not bullish on VZ and I am not that interested in that area or VZ as a company to discuss it. Good luck.
  8. Investing in highways is intellectually appealing ( autocorrect corrected that to "ineffectually appealing" - that too ). However, if you did that in 1999, you would have ended with a lot of (near) donuts. Nortel. Ciena. Cisco (not donut, but still not back to 1999), Lucent. Even QCOM that was the one company to rule them all ( read "Gorilla Game" thread on Silicon Investor when you have couple weeks - and weep ) - only came back above 1999 levels last year. Yeah, if you DCA'ed, you'd done better. Still the "highways" or "picks and shovels" was not where the money was made mostly. So IMO careful with that approach.
  9. Honestly IMO with funds the decision is more what you like and what you are comfortable with than trying to make a rational(ized) decision which fund will outperform. I'd say "who knows". There are pluses/minuses for all of them. One thing we did not touch: what if the next big wave is biotech or biotech AI? Then the answers are very different.
  10. I am not investing in PLTR on principle.
  11. QQQ maybe. I don't particularly like their selection criteria of being Nasdaq-only though. IWF/IWO maybe. You could go with some actively managed fund, but then you might do as well yourself maybe. Although I would like to hear if anyone has a good ideas for fund(s).
  12. As you know, Google and Facebook were not public in 1999 and Facebook was not even a thing. I was there when Google started - I know some #-single-digit employees personally. I was stupid value investor enough not to join/invest. Apple was not the-real-Apple (TM) in 1999 yet. We already talked about Amazon-vs-Ebay on the other thread. Even assuming we avoided pets.com, investing in 1999 would have been Amazon, Yahoo, Ebay, ??? and out of these only Amazon worked out eventually. There is a big risk that that's the same situation right now. Although one could argue that AI requires huge companies with huge data sets and Google/Facebook/Amazon/Apple/Microsoft will win vs any startups. Looking from the positive point of view, for any non-value-investors, there was a very long time - 20 years so far !!!! - to invest into Google/Apple/Amazon/Facebook sometimes at quite attractive valuations. The only requirement was not to sell when valuations went above "value investor sell threshold". I mostly failed on that too. But this might be a good way to invest in AI going from today. The positive is that you can follow the companies and sell off the ones that don't deliver. It's not easy, but it is somewhat possible. E.g. even though I stupidly value-investor sold most shares that I acquired through the last 20 years, I have to say - pretty honestly - that I did not buy (m)any shitcos that did not deliver. So it is possible IMO to pick mostly winners. Anyway, what I own from AI now: Google, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, Facebook. I own tiny position in TSLA. I own Apple, but I doubt it's going to be great AI play. I own tiny positions in some shitcos. I don't think there are other obvious AI investments right now. I'm interested to hear if someone has suggestions though.
  13. @LongHaul did not target the notes and recommendation for people with depression. So maybe this is a bit OT, but: there are chemical imbalance causes for depression and other psychological issues. And there are situations where drugs just work (TM). I know people who tried CBT methods and they did not work much if at all, while minimal doses of drugs worked great. I know someone for whom the depression symptoms were due to vitamin D deficiency and fixing that got rid of the symptoms/issues. Not saying that drugs are always the answer, but sometimes they are. If it's at a level of clinical issue, find a good professional, preferably someone who knows both CBT and drugs. Good luck.
×
×
  • Create New...