I'm a curious cat, and have been digging up some old endorsements and recommendations from 2014 and 2015. It comes back to one primary theme: Even the experts were often left guessing.
The obscure timelines and processes of HC were often a huge barrier to making even somewhat accurate predictions. Some of the best analytical investors were really left wandering in the unknown, still forced to make their best guesses, and often ended up with terrible success ratios.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is this: Does anyone feel like a lot of the "analysis" completed back in 2014 and even 2015 can essentially be thrown out the door? Much of the fundamental analysis back then seemed to be based on a lot of hopeful assumptions that never came true. Just because a company seemed like ripe potential to receive a license didn't mean that it did. Just because the business model seemed excellent in 2014 doesn't mean that the current political environment hasn't changed its potential for 2016 and beyond.
As trivial as it may seem, if you want a prime example of why I think we need to challenge our way of thinking and company evaluation, here's an example of one expert's recommendation in 2014 and then again in 2015. Most of us are well aware of the history here.
"The 420Investor service recommended folks buy and hold ATTBF at .77.
After the service's recommendation left subscribers with horrific losses of 50% or more, the service now indicates it does not have much in the way of hope for the future.
So, the real question is - what made the 420Investor service deem ATTBF a viable investment at .77, when the service indicates bearish sentiment now that it's under .10?
Suspicious? I am."
Just FYI for credit, this was originally posted by MindHonest last year on this very board.
