Replies to post #111724 on Zeev's Turnips Patch-No Politics (ZEEV)

[ajtj99]

I've been using T/A for about 2-years. I'm still learning, but I've gotten better over time.

As for the stagnant part, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

It appears T/A appeals to the folks who gravitate towards the logical/mathematical side of the market. When valuations are at ridiculous levels, how can you possibly use F/A? When books are cooked and write-offs are everywhere, how can you use F/A? When options are not expensed, but there are off the books loans, how can you use F/A? When a company's never made a profit, and uses pro-forma and EBITDA, how can you use F/A?

When a company's insolvent and has never made a net profit, but has a market cap of over $10-billion and is trading at a 52-week high, how can you use F/A?

When valuations are being justified by peer comparisons, how can you use F/A?

When the trailing GAAP earnings for the S&P are at a P/E of 33 and the historic bull market high end is 20, how can you use F/A?

I believe F/A is only useful in incredibly transparent companies who are trading at historic value levels of valuation. It's a waste otherwise.

I even hold some stock (not much, just a speculative amount) in a company that could file bankruptcy tomorrow, but the stock stands a good chance of quadrupling its April lows before that happens (already tripled, then dropped back to double).

The chart's are all I care about. That particular chart could even break out tomorrow and hand me a 40% gain in a day.

Ford could also file bankruptcy tomorrow, and nobody's saying you're a fool if you own that stock. They're pretty much insolvent, and only the pride of the Ford family has kept that company from filing Chapter 11.

I would never put any more than a speculative amount of money in a risky stock like F or the other trash I mentioned earlier. However, I was just trying to illustrate the point that no matter how the F/A looks, T/A still will be what makes the money for traders.