You open by claiming that you are being downvoted because you are such a free-thinking maverick that you lost the popularity contest with the stodgy conservatives at HN instead being due to any shortcomings in your argument. That's adorable.
Your second paragraph sticks with the same nonsense as your previous post i.e. investors are smarter than us so they have to be right.
Now you try some new stuff so thanks for that. You made a good example of Amazon but since I already claimed that strong CEOs can resist short-term investor pressures and Bezos clearly falls into this category I invalidated this argument before you even wrote it down. It makes me think you aren't really paying attention.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make with the next paragraph but whatever it is there is not enough information there to draw any sort of conclusion. Stocks tank for many reasons including bad luck so one tale of a data point isn't useful.
Your last paragraph is well done. Unlike your other points it took a little thought to deduce why it is incorrect. I do believe there are many overvalued stocks but I am not going to short them. Bubbles can live a very, very long time and shorting them is a bet on when the bubble will pop, not on how big the bubble is, and I claim no special insight or information on the exact time any particular ponzi pyramid will inevitably implode.
Much improved: 2/10 (earned in the last paragraph only.)
> CEOs can resist short-term investor pressures and Bezos clearly falls into this category
Amazon's P/E is currently 503. The P/E for the S&P 500 is around 19. The "investor pressures" are strongly supporting Bezos.
I'm one of them. I'm long on AMZN, with my own money on the line, and it's done well for me. I plan on staying pat.
Whether I'm right or wrong about AMZN's future is irrelevant - what is relevant is that a high P/E is a sure sign of investors betting on the long term future of a company, and not being obsessed with the next quarter. The CEO doesn't set the P/E, the investors do.
Your second paragraph sticks with the same nonsense as your previous post i.e. investors are smarter than us so they have to be right.
Now you try some new stuff so thanks for that. You made a good example of Amazon but since I already claimed that strong CEOs can resist short-term investor pressures and Bezos clearly falls into this category I invalidated this argument before you even wrote it down. It makes me think you aren't really paying attention.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make with the next paragraph but whatever it is there is not enough information there to draw any sort of conclusion. Stocks tank for many reasons including bad luck so one tale of a data point isn't useful.
Your last paragraph is well done. Unlike your other points it took a little thought to deduce why it is incorrect. I do believe there are many overvalued stocks but I am not going to short them. Bubbles can live a very, very long time and shorting them is a bet on when the bubble will pop, not on how big the bubble is, and I claim no special insight or information on the exact time any particular ponzi pyramid will inevitably implode.
Much improved: 2/10 (earned in the last paragraph only.)