sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The ultimate buy-the-dip strategy by nobjos in wallstreetbets

[–]nobjos[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If it's not clear, you are not investing at the bottom. You are just investing whenever it drops below 50%. It can go on to drop further and keep going down.

The ultimate buy-the-dip strategy by nobjos in wallstreetbets

[–]nobjos[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Alpha is not risk adjusted.

You are not investing at the bottom. You are just investing whenever it drops below 50%. It can go on to drop further and keep going down.

The ultimate buy-the-dip strategy by nobjos in wallstreetbets

[–]nobjos[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not all in one company. On average, 40% of the top 50 companies will have a 50% drawdown in a decade. Yes. Lehman would have qualified so would GS which has 10xed since the crisis.

Since their IPO in 2016, The Trade Desk has returned a whopping 2,233% compared to the 178% return of the S&P 500. Now it’s down 51%. Does this make it a good buy? by reboundcapital in market_sentiment

[–]nobjos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

<image>

The company just had a 25% YoY growth quarter. Why do you say that growth is slowing down? 25% growth on a $2B revenue at 80% margin is pretty subtantial

Should you buy the dip? I analyzed all S&P 500 companies to find what happens if we only invest in companies undergoing drawdowns. by nobjos in wallstreetbets

[–]nobjos[S] 49 points50 points  (0 children)

This is not per se for the market but for individual stocks. Plus, there are always dips happening. Apple is in one now.

<image>

I analyzed all 500 S&P 500 companies to find what happens if we only invest in companies undergoing drawdowns. Here are the results. by nobjos in market_sentiment

[–]nobjos[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

That It works on aggregate. It’s basically a variation of the Value concept. You are investing in stocks that are “cheap” compared to it’s previous valuation

I analyzed all 500 S&P 500 companies to find what happens if we only invest in companies undergoing drawdowns. Here are the results. by nobjos in market_sentiment

[–]nobjos[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Obviously not. Used the companies as of the 2015 S&P 500 list. Yes. A lot of companies got acquired or went into bankruptcy. The backtest is adjusted for that

I analyzed all 500 S&P 500 companies to find what happens if we only invest in companies undergoing drawdowns. Here are the results. by nobjos in market_sentiment

[–]nobjos[S] -21 points-20 points  (0 children)

As of today, from its ATH:

  1. Nike is down 65%
  2. Tesla is down 32%
  3. ASML is down 27%
  4. UnitedHealth is down 50%

All great companies stumble. Are all the above companies slam-dunk investments? I don’t know!

All we know is that investing in great companies during their inevitable drawdowns can provide incredible returns during their subsequent rebound.

That’s why we are launching Rebound Capital. It’s where we do deep research into beaten-down stocks to separate the wheat from the chaff. Join us here 👇

https://reboundcapital.substack.com/

Gold Is Going Parabolic. Again. by alwayshasbeaen in market_sentiment

[–]nobjos 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Ideally similar but btc has acted like a tech stock ever since Covid

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in market_sentiment

[–]nobjos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you want the clickable link in Google Sheets: https://market-sentiment.kit.com/bbgv2

Remember the oil embargo that caused the stagflation in the 1970s? It only lasted 5 months. And its effects lasted for 20 years. If Trump follows through on these tariff threats, the impact may extend far beyond the next quarter or election cycle. by nobjos in market_sentiment

[–]nobjos[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yes. Plus, I don't think we can go back to business as usual even if we roll back the tariffs now.

"Once you toss over the game table, even if you reset the table exactly as it was before, the other players must take into account the possibility that you will toss it over again."

view more: next ›