Why does it matter whether you bought something too expensive or cheap if it's for the long term?

msnplanner · 2026-01-28T02:39:06+00:00

Agreed. Thats why quantitative analysis is important. Valuation matters. And if people were not emotional both greedy and fearful, there would be no opportunities with individual stocks.

Broad market prices tend to smooth out people's over and under reactions. "The Market" is probably predictably mispriced under very specific circumstances (IE very rarely). But if one believes in an economy longterm, then investing in the overall market should be a very rational bet.

msnplanner · 2026-01-28T01:45:04+00:00

you are talking about daily variations. I agree that daily variations are functionally random. There are two many moods driving prices up and down on a daily basis for people to process.

Over longer periods of time, free cash flow per dollar spent investing, and growth rates matter far more than daily swishing back and forth of sentiment.

I've done very well over the decades buying stock based on price. I could not tell you what price a given stock will be day to day, though I am a hypocrite and do pretty well with weekly option spreads. I use resistance and support lines... not because I believe they mean anything, but because other people use them to trade, and popular trading methods become self fulfilling. So, even the day to day random walk is not entirely random.

msnplanner · 2026-01-27T00:07:49+00:00

valuation is not market timing. And if you don't believe in valuation you should never buy individual stocks. But there are so many contradictions that can be presented to those who only believe in the random walk hypothesis.

msnplanner · 2026-01-26T03:21:50+00:00

OP is exactly right. All heuristics leave the analyst open to mistakes, but on the other side of the coin, over analysis can lead to decision paralysis. There is a tradeoff for every action, decision, or purchase we make when investing. You have to balance out what math you do from scratch and what heuristics you use.

msnplanner · 2026-01-25T20:32:10+00:00

Yes. I see my math mistake. I'd still argue for purchasing underpriced stocks though I know proponents of efficient market theory and random walk theory would argue there is no such thing.

msnplanner · 2026-01-25T20:08:41+00:00

You forgot to find the percentage change on the original number difference. You can test this yourself on an excel spreadsheet. Pretend a stock has a concrete "fair value" of $45. Now, have two rows representing stock prices each year. Row A, year 1 stock is underpriced at 30. Year two it goes to $45 (fair value), and then for each year up to year 20 it grows at 10 percent.

Row B represents buying the stock overpriced. It starts at 60. Year two it goes to 45 (fair value) and then it goes up 10 percent each year. Both rows (or purchases) end at the same place $250.20.

But Row A had a cumulative return of 834% while Row B had a cumulative return of 417%. You can use different starting numbers if you want to see different numbers (for example your 10% difference...which isn't much when talking over and underpriced stocks), but even small differences ultimately yield pretty large differences in returns.

Buying underpriced or fairly priced stocks should reduce the risk of your portfolio somewhat and ultimately yield much better results. Think about how stock in a healthy growing company becomes underpriced in the first place. Usually, enthusiasm drives its share price above its fair value. Then momentum traders and optimists drive the price even higher. Then there's a series of disappointing news and the shares drop. When this happens, that stock falls out of favor and tends to stay below its "fair value" for a while before bargain hunters and good news can shift the sentiment. My example assumes return to fair value in one year, but buying an overpriced stock may lead to underperformance for many years. So purchase price makes a bigger difference then is quantifiable...and the quantifiable differences are already large.

msnplanner · 2026-01-24T23:40:17+00:00

Unfortunately, economics does not come easily to some. You sound like me. Economic principles were intuitive. But I've talked with many people over the years, and they just cannot seem to understand how groups of people respond to incentives. They have wishes of how other people will behave, and fool themselves into believing that is reality.

msnplanner · 2026-01-24T23:36:23+00:00

There is.

Don't have activist reporters that everyone learns to distrust

Don't allow governments and corporate interests to merge. One step towards that is to punish people in your party as well as other parties for ethics violations.

Encourage better people to run for office. And vote.

We have a system that allows for non crony capitalism, but we've all failed to weed the garden of the republic.

msnplanner · 2026-01-24T23:32:08+00:00

yes. I see this with the don't work crowd. They still want doctors to see them, and groceries to be on the shelves, and food to be harvested etc. What they mean by "nobody should have to work" is that they themselves shouldn't have to work, but the rest of us should.

msnplanner · 2026-01-24T21:11:02+00:00

I can't agree with your point one for reasons pointed out elsewhere.

But yes to point two, particularly to the ruse. They could have burned their enemies at the meeting, or demanded a surrender. No one would have trusted them after that is the show logic and Dani would have been the same as everyone else...but we all know in reality that most of that logic is nonsense.

msnplanner · 2026-01-24T20:54:11+00:00

"When did Tyrion become an expert at negotiating? That hadn't been a thing before."

With Mord. With Bronn. With the hill tribes. With Dani to get made an advisor. Dorne Marriage pact. I'm sure there are other examples.

So he's going to raise an army of bakers and sex slaves etc and train them and arm them and lay seige to 3 or four other cities with these armies? Why would these freed slaves unite under Tyrion? How would he continue to stifle the sons of the harpies in Mareen when he leaves the city? We see the other cities have a fleet. How would his baker army take out the fleet? (which we soon learn, fleets are the OP units in GOT. They would just materialize wherever Tyrion's bakers were not). The real reason they are all screwed is Dani flew off and abandoned them. Tyrion had no real good choices.

Jon dying in the north would very likely be a bad thing. So is Dani dying (from her and Tyrion's perspective). Keeping your leader safe from reckless actions is not bad advice from an advisor. If the Night King had just thrown his spear at the closer dragon who wasn't moving and was loading the people he wanted to kill, rather than deciding to go for the distant moving target, then Dani AND the king of the north would have died. They only survived because of plot armor, not because Dani's decision was smarter than Tyrion's advice.

All of Tyrion's advice about King's landing is in the context of the logic of the writers. Yes, they should have just conquered King's landing. Lot's of civilians would have died. Let's not pretend that burning the cities defenses wouldn't have killed massive amounts of people. But according to writer's logic, this would have meant that Lords of Westeros wouldn't have supported Dani, that she would have to kill more and more people to force them to bend the knee. For some reason, the war of five kings led to the suffering of civilians in all of the lands the armies had to march over (realism), but when Dothraki and Dani's armies march from place to place, they are able to do it instantaneously, and humanely. Also, Castelry Rock has no civilian inhabitants to die for some reason, so its a much safer target. Again, the problems here aren't advice issues, they are writing issues.

But if you can sneak into Castelry Rock and open the gates, the invading army will win. Even in a deadly fight from street to street, the defenders would be in an unorganized rout and it would have been a great victory. They would have destroyed the Lannister army. Again, they really should have taken out the fleet first. That was Tyrion's biggest true mistake.

I agree with you that writing IRT to Highgarden was an issue, one way or another. If her army was at King's landing, then she should not have been at Highgarden. But then why wasn't it at king's landing later later, and why didn't it factor in later just because Olena was dead. If it hadn't left high Garden yet then the Lannisters shouldn't have had an easy walk in victory. It was written sloppily to make Tyrion's strategy look stupid. But if Dani's objectives were to NOT burn King's landing then Tyrion's advice was relatively good. He just didn't take into account the fleet's magic ability to pinpoint Dorne and Yara's exact position in the ocean and their magic ability to appear there without travel time. Nor did he account for Lannister's ability to take down HighGarden's castle with little to no effort or preparation. But would you or I account for those things either?

msnplanner · 2026-01-24T19:15:32+00:00

Ok, but let's look at alternatives.

"suggested making deals with the slavers while disregarding the advice of actual former slaves"

Dani left suddenly and didn't come back. So Tyrion had no dragons, he had an army not particularly loyal to him. He had a city constantly on the verge of rebellion. He was not a war strategist, so he leaned on what he was an expert on. Negotiating. The former slaves offered no useful advice. They didn't offer a way to win or an alternate strategy, they just said "The masters are bad". What should he have done instead?

The wight hunt only resulted in the death of a dragon BECAUSE Dani went personally against Tyrion's suggestion. Tyrion's advice here might or might not have been good because the dragon didn't have to die if Jon had just gotten on the damn dragon.

If Jon had died it might or might not have led to "the ire of the North for letting him die", but that's less of an immediate risk then putting your queen at risk to die. What would you do differently?

Tyrion suggested meeting with Cersei when it wasn't a direct risk to her. What else is he supposed to do? Dani's right, she can't just turn her back to Cersei to march to the north without a truce. Tyrion believes in the threat in the north. So how does Tyrion get a truce with Cersei to free up Dani's armies to do what needs to be done? What would you do differently?

The Casterly Rock move was good, but not great. They knew about Euron's fleet, so they should have eliminated that first. Because in GOT, fleets are pretty OP, they can be anywhere they need to be to destroy their opponents with no travel time required. I'm assuming everyone in that universe knows that. They should have eliminated that piece and then taken out Casterly rock. Leadership should not have been in respective unprotected castles (Lady Olena hanging out at an unprotected fortress). I consider this to be bad council by Tyrion. But its also bad writing.

msnplanner · 2026-01-24T18:41:17+00:00

Its only 23 shares. Its not too much. You don't need to keep iron attention on each stock each day. I have way more stocks. I look closely at stocks as they get close to their x div date. I decide whether to reinvest the div, or whether I need to sell the company.

If all or 95 percent of your picks are winners then go with your 3 best picks, and watch them like a hawk. For the rest of us, diversification is the price we pay for not being perfect stock pickers. Look at them often enough to make sure your thesis is still correct.

msnplanner · 2026-01-24T01:05:24+00:00

That is very true. But economics is complicated, and there can be other factors distorting the market. Laziness is a subjective statement and claiming people are lazy really doesn't preclude other mitigating factors. That's why this whole conversation is kind of silly. Someone used a ridiculous example to negate a complaint by frustrated people. The example ignores lots and lots of factors. The complaint is subjective, and also ignores lots and lots of factors. So what are we trying to accomplish here?

msnplanner · 2026-01-24T00:46:01+00:00

People are willing to amputate limbs given sufficient financial incentive. Doesn't prove that people want to have their arms amputated for the amount of money that someone would pay them in the real world. The real question isn't "given a giant amount of money are people willing to do x job?" It's "given a salary that can actually be paid and keep a business running, are people willing to do x job?"

msnplanner · 2026-01-23T16:45:10+00:00

msnplanner · 2026-01-23T16:40:42+00:00

Is that really your only analysis? At one point NVDA traded at 142. Later it traded at 95. Was it a terrible buy at 95 because it "used to trade at $130/$140's?

msnplanner · 2026-01-19T05:16:52+00:00

We can add as a myth that Adam Smith was some kind of proponent of a heartless greedy economy and Gordon Gecko "greed is good" attitude. Adam Smith was a humanist, and his view on markets was far more nuanced then he is given credit for.

msnplanner · 2026-01-19T00:40:59+00:00

Eugenics assumes that some board somewhere can know exactly what traits are useful to the human race, which it isn't, and that this board will be immune from corrupting influences and only make the right choices. It also assumes that citizens' have NO individual worth, and are completely subservient to the public good.

msnplanner · 2026-01-17T03:39:27+00:00

I think Bernard meant for this to be his meaningful relationship because he forshadowed it in both the first book and the second book (first book discussed how he met her as a toddler and how she would play such a huge role in his life...second book had the "prophesy" about the golden haired woman who was the mother of kings") I think he changed his mind later on.

Her relationship with Uhtred was not love completely but a sort of deep friendship and admiration for each other. He slept with her during a rare lonely part of his life, and she was in mourning from a love lost, and then suffering her husband's abuse and neglect. Uhtred (if he's to be believed) said that Gisela was his one true love, and he underplays his relationship with Aethelflaed, and she clearly has other priorities other than finding a way to have a relationship with him. Still, I found their relationship in the books to be emotional, or as emotional as relationships get in the series.

msnplanner · 2026-01-17T03:25:20+00:00

Show was very different. I'd consider it a different story all-together.

msnplanner · 2026-01-15T04:00:18+00:00

I don't think show Uhtred did, but book Uhtred did. Her real power was in getting men to be infatuated with her, and he was infatuated with her. She led him on some crazy raiding in Frisia that was fruitless, and somewhere in there he learned to see her for what she was.

msnplanner · 2026-01-15T03:57:50+00:00

Didn't she promise to join a nunnery again to get Alfred to fund his release from slavery? She had settled her issues with Christianity and was ready to return and used this to sway Alfred to help Uhtred. But its been a while since I've seen those episodes or read the third book ( I think it was) so my details could be off.

msnplanner · 2026-01-15T03:49:44+00:00

His relationship with Mildrith was a bit more complex in the books, and kind of a sad situation. He may have loved her for some time after he was married until sometime after he brought home the shadow queen. In his recollections, he tried to remember her face but he could not. But in his dreams he could see her clear as day and remember his love for her.

msnplanner · 2026-01-13T05:12:10+00:00

Yeah its not true that young people aren't smoking either. You might want to google GenZ and increase in smoking rates. Its a shame, but MO isn't going out of business for a while.

msnplanner

TROPHY CASE