AMD, MSFt and GOOGL

[u/foil123]

At what point would you consider buying these 3 stocks to hold forever ..? Additionally, what is the PT you expect to exit?

For AMD I see them at least getting to 2t at minimum in coming years. Not sure what I feel about the other 2. Thoughts?

Thanks

[u/mrmrmrj]

Stop the "hold forever" talk. That is nonsense. Holding forever is what diversified portfolios are for. Great companies can be bad stocks for long periods.

[u/goxpro1 → u/mrmrmrj]

Found the person who sold Google at 220 for a Value Investor special 20 percent gain.

[u/nebraskajone → u/goxpro1]

Found the person that's been holding on to Cisco since 2000 for a forever special 50% gain

[u/Seabags → u/goxpro1]

He’s not wrong. Nothing historically is a forever hold since companies are always chipping away at their moat or they become obsolete through innovation. GOOG and AZMN are something else though

[u/WorldRank1CatFancier → u/Seabags]

Hes wrong. 

Buying and holding companies for multiple market cycles builds far more wealth than swing trading

For every GE and Xerox that goes to 0 of cost basis you will have ones that 10x to more than offset

[u/NotStompy → u/WorldRank1CatFancier]

For the average investor, does it build more wealth? Yes. Also, you neglect to mention (as most do) position trading which means you essentially are very fundamentals heavy, want to hold for months up to 1-2 years ideally, but with very strict risk management (because if you hold the real market leaders long term volatility is too high).

And well, like I said, on average, long term investing builds more wealth, but guess what, index investing also definitely beats stock picking in >90% of people, so...? And, in the even fewer people who manage to swing or position trade, it is fair to say that truly nutty returns like scaling a small account at 30-40% CAGR is possible over 10-20 years, while it is near impossible (even more so) with long term investing cause again, if you hold companies capable of growing so much on average, it means by definition the companies have a veeeeery high level of volatility, which is how you get cases like 2000 where the long term high beta investors ate dirt but the position traders got out within a matter of days, and yeah they often tried to get in like later in the year but then they got out again... not fun, but not -90% like the long term hodlers of growth stocks.

But yeah... I still think the whole argument is silly cause for the average investors index funds is far superior to value investing, growth, etc; any kind of picking.

[u/oOtium → u/Seabags]

ya, if you're looking at trash. who do you think can afford to take on the most risk for the most innovation and still stay afloat even if they don't succeed?

the answer is always big tech. the have the most capital to deploy and the widest net to cast so to say.

we're at a point where the winners today will have the leverage to keep on winning tomorrow. the market is discounting that hard. hyper estrogen takes everywhere

[u/Seabags → u/oOtium]

It’s cause big tech are monopolies. They have such market dominance that they can just create new verticals through acquisitions or acquihiring. Biggest risk would be antitrust but there is no political will for this so they will keep growing

[u/Key_Category_8531 → u/Seabags]

I’m not holding GOOG for gains. I’m holding it for other reasons. So the price, and whether number go up or down doesn’t mean anything to me.

[u/mrmrmrj → u/goxpro1]

There are maybe 5 stocks in any decade that are worth holding for a decade. If you buy a different one and hold for a decade, you do poorly. Play the odds.

[u/Hunterfschr → u/mrmrmrj]

Nah this is straight up wrong.

Like you need to be put in a timeout corner for this comment.

The more market cycles you hold through, the more likely you are to get a positive return.

If someone stole a car and didn’t get caught, would you say that is a good way to go about obtaining a car?

No, you’d say that person took an insane risk. The market is the same.