After my brother introduced me to the hypothesis of "market efficiency", I hope to prove that it is not absolutely nearly as efficient as the theory suggests. All the risk and information that is known about a stock should be built in and thus I should not be able to consistently outperform the market, right? Well, then I should not be able to pick stocks that underperform the market average either. If my 150-200 picks consistently underperform the market over the long term, then by avoiding these types of stocks I should be able to, even by a small margin, outperform the market. I think there is merit to the effiency hypothesis, but I think it needs revisions. I think if the investing community fails to look at public data from new angles, then the market is essentially riding around on a squeaky wheel. The definitions of "short term" and "long term" are never really fleshed out, so a pundit can just fit the scale of each in order to and refute my data (my gains could be considered short term and thus not apply), which irks me. Sloppy blanket hypothesis. Also one could argue the laws of probability could explain the potential success of my picks if they work. I could simply repeat the exercise, and after the fourth, fifth time statistics would show this is a cop out. It also then suggests that skilled investors shouldn't be able to consistently outperform without insider information and the like, which I find a little odd. [more]
Good people get cheated, just as good horses get ridden.
Stay away from IPO's, dudes. Go for a horse with a good track record.
This means that biotech and pharma collectively sucks. It sucks when there is a 0 pe. Do not pick them long term unless you know for a fact that they will be in the black next quarter. Why bet on a horse that is not making money. Are you trying to get better than an 8% return or knock it out of the park. Knocking it out of the park is wicked hard to do.