I’ve commented about this before but am going to keep saying it… love the outdoor backgrounds almost as much as the content! Give us a “Where’s Joe filming from?” series or at least a discord channel about it 😂
Joe P. here. I really got into the backgrounds myself and now I look for them as I'm exploring. :) Starting at the end of this month they're going to change pretty dramatically though. I spend winters abroad exploring in my down time. This year it looks like countries in East Africa. I'll be sure to drop some info on Discord as I go along. ;)
Thank you for the kind words! I find the only way I know I understand something is if I explain it simply, not just parrot it as is tempting sometimes. I don't feel I understand something unless I can explain it very simply. Joe P.
Thank you very much for the kind words. There are no barriers to entry so anyone can become an "instant analyst." Very few actually have proper industry experience and/or academic experience, and most haven't much actual investing experience either. So, they resort to parroting whatever easily accessible bull thesis they can find, and they often spend way too much time analyzing minute details that are just noise. When it comes to chasing clout, cheerleading works best to build an audience. We have integrity, and a mission to help people become better investors, so you won't find any of that BS here. We're investors, not speculators. We buy companies, not stocks. ;) Joe P.
One red flag I sometimes see is companies with barely any revenue, bragging about how big their TAM is. Having a huge total addressable market is the easiest thing in the world. If I start selling sweaty foot flavored soda, my TAM includes that of coca cola and pepsi😂
Totally! Revenues are SO critically important to prove that you a) have a product or service people are willing to pay for and b) you can sell it for substantially more than it costs to produce.
One note on VIEs that a lot of people seem to confuse: if you buy stocks on the Hong Kong exchange instead of the US traded ADR, it’s still a VIE structure. Because the underlying “real” shares are mainland China stocks which are not investable for foreigners to buy. So no, you don’t have a legal advantage when you buy HK stock over ADRs, it’s the same problem.
Thank you very much for this comment! I have been reaching out to some legal experts on this, none of whom have been willing to engage yet. My question surrounds exactly what you said. Is the VIE structure risk for HK listings the same? BABA, for example, is listed in both HK and USA. One thought is that if China decides to put the hammer down on the USA, the HK listing may be overlooked or treated differently. Regardless of that, VIE structures are not investable from where we're sitting. Joe P.
@@Nanalyze As far as I’m concerned, BABA stock gives the investor a claim on the Alibaba VIE and the Hong stock 9988 on the HK exchange give the investor a direct stake in the VIE, which nonetheless is only the VIE. One BABA share is convertible to 8 shares of 9988. I can’t estimate how big the risk is that Chinese regulators will somehow ban VIE structures (technically they are already banned, the ban is just not enforced so far!) but it certainly is a risk yes.
@@riffsoffov9291 For those who may not be familiar - "In China, company chops are mandatory for doing business, and replace signatures as used in Western countries." Not familiar with that problem, but have you heard about shadow banking? ;) That's an elephant in the room perhaps not many Westerners know about.
Thank you very much for the positive feedback! I hoped this one would be quite the banger. It describes all the mistakes I've made throughout my investing journey. ;) Joe P.
Question: What if I completely discard "Technology", "Telecom" and "Utilities" as categories? For technology I already have plenty as I hold VOO and I am now switching to dividend strategy.
That's absolutely an option. Everyone should tailor their portfolio to fit their own needs. For example, many investors choose to not own REITs if they own their own property which provides them real estate exposure. You can still achieve proper diversification effects without owning a stock in every sector. Great question.
@@Nanalyze thanks so much for your reply. It just seems to me that the concepts of "Technology" and VALUE are almost the opposite. I am actually surprized VIG has so much weight in technology. Technology is growth and dividends are in VALUE. VYM is pretty good w/low tech. exposure. But it's like to make my own and just eliminate Technology, Telecom and Utilities for simplicity. I'll have ~40 stocks but in all other sectors.
@@МЕГАПоЗиТИВ-й2е Tech can be value. This piece on growth vs value will help clear up some of the confusion here: ruclips.net/video/_uD-cqElhmg/видео.html
I don't have to do any of that fundamentals du diligence. I just have to get that info from stock analysts from youtube (which includes you), CNBC and online sources. It's funny how sites like Tipranks will show 10 analysts recommendations on a stock and there is a mix of buy, hold, and sell on the very same stock... which comes from from highly educated skilled stock analysts all giving different recommendations. I would never presume to be able to analyze a stock's fundamentals more effectively than any one of those analysts. So... there is a skill to aggregating analyst's analysis and arriving at the correct assessment (hopefully). In my case, I spent 30 years in Tech (systems engineer, tech consultant, etc) working for the biggest: Intel, HP, Digital Equipment, Unisys &others... so that's an advantage.
Good point on the wide variation you'll see from analysts. In my tenure as an investment professional it became very clear to me that these folks take a "throw something at the wall and see what sticks" approach to their craft and their musings aren't very useful, even at the aggregate. Here at Nanalyze we just don't pay any attention to traditional analysts and it helps reduce a lot of market noise. That's not to say there aren't a lot of intelligent people out there analyzing the market. It's just that their findings aren't really useful because - as we know - 95% of investment professionals can't beat the market in the long run. Joe P.
@@Nanalyze I disagree. I'm talking about professional portfolio managers and hedge fund managers who are providing company fundamentals/other insights/etc information they obtained and assessed for their own stocks/assets under management. And retail investors like me are still needing to pick stocks/when to invest more (stocks that are in addition to my index fund etfs) where their information is invaluable.
@@lilmsgs Making investment decisions based on the decisions of others doesn't lead to someone becoming a better investor. That's just what I've found over my career as an investment professional. It's a much better idea to establish your own methodology and refine it over time. There is a plethora of quality names out there to choose from and in order to select stocks with conviction you need to make those decisions yourself. It's precisely why we never tell investors what to do. They need to figure it out. You find it valuable to take inspiration from some set of investment professionals that you've selected and that's fine. That isn't a method we would encourage. Joe P.
The point is that having all your assets in just two stocks is a horrible idea. And you only have gains when they're realized. Most of today's rah-rah cheerleader-driven investors have never seen what a correction does to paper gains in volatile stocks.
Overwhelmingly tech is the one sector which has the lowest barriers to entry which is likely due to the low regulation around it, and while it’s seen as the industry which disrupts others it more frequently gets disrupted itself…..by new technology lol As always the most well run, well capitalized companies will rise. It just comes down to finding one which has a durable MOAT, few competitors and isn’t trading at insane valuations. So basically finding a needle in a haystack.
I'm not sure how relevant moats are to tech companies. I believe Apple has a moat, but it derives from the brand rather than the tech. Years ago I read an article where the author claimed the tech industry was like a series of games, mostly winner-takes-all or winners-take-most, and I think that's a reasonable description, though it doesn't cover every nuance. IBM won the game in mainframes, and its moat there might be stronger than ever, but that's now quite a small part of the computing market. Maybe IBM will be a winner in quantum computing, but that's too hard for me to predict. Intel might have looked like they had a moat in processors, but they're now competing with AMD in X86, while ARM-based processors are taking share, Nvidia is so far winning the game in AI and High Performance Computing accelerators, and Intel lost their foundry lead. In their early days, Intel were losing the game against Japanese memory-makers, and decided to concentrate on CPUs. That worked out very well for decades, so maybe it was durable enough to qualify as a moat, but it didn't have the staying power of Coca-Cola. So, I think tech management generally needs to be nimble and opportunistic (and constructively paranoid?). When it isn't, tech investors might need those same qualities, or at least a framework that gives them good enough exits.
Good comment. So the extent to which a number of competing companies passes around customers is referred to as "dynamism" according to McKinsey. Seems like the opposite of a moat when customers can easily switch. IBM became too comfortable with their success and suffered as a result. We'll see if they can turn that ship around.
@@Nanalyze I think that getting too comfortable can explain a lot of failures, it's just more dangerous in tech. Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but there's a guy called Sandy Munro who's been in the auto business since the 70s, and he started a consultancy in 1988, built around "Lean Design" (which he trademarked). There's a video where he says, there came a point when US carmakers weren't giving him business, and one of them said he should try China, which he did. In China, they were very keen to learn and apply his methods, and the fruits of that are now especially obvious in EVs. I'm sure he doesn't claim all the success for himself, rather it's the willingness in China to learn, improve and innovate. He says the US carmakers suffered from "affluenza", and I suppose for a while they were making money too easily to be motivated to innovate. Or maybe it was the executives who were too comfortable.
Chinese automakers jumped way ahead in the past decade. They're building quality cars and selling them for very cheap. "Made in China" no longer has the taboo it once did.
Hey Joe, sounds like you described Elon Musk's Tesla here. LOL, now I'm waiting for the fan bois attacking me as a short seller. And yes, they have revenue but everything else is a red flag as Joe described.
The fundamentals seem sound for Tesla as an auto company but - as an auto company - they're highly overvalued. Promises of future growth coming from Musk hold a lot more credibility though given his past accomplishments. Yep, you can't be critical about a fan boy stock without a bunch of tool bags coming around and harassing you. Just as a general comment, in our community we encourage people to be most critical of names they're most bullish about. :) Joe P.
@ Appreciate to set the standards like this, Joe. BTW, where is that wonderful scenery that I always see in the background. Doesn’t look like HK to me.
@@AndreasWest :) I've been hanging out in the Pacific Northwest this summer. Will be back to HK for a bit early next year. It's probably my favorite place in the whole wide world.
@ If you’re in Singapore let me know. Can meet for coffee. I like the island outside of HK with the giant Buddha statue and that old section with the stairs and escalator, lots of vibes there but probably not a good place to live in peace.
@@AndreasWest That would be great! I love to meet subscribers as I'm traveling. Currently in Dubai for a week. What most people don't know about HK is like 80% is forested and full of nice peaceful trails. I used to live up by the escalator for a while but much more enjoyed living in Aberdeen. HK is a place that's best enjoyed living in, but it's not overly great for visiting to be honest. Singapore has some stellar food and is worth visiting for that alone. Joe P.
Im literally watching this and trying to pick a kidney stone out of my .... . NO JOKE. VERY PAINFUL UPDATE: Its out. I had to sanitize some tweezers and gently pull it out. Im going say its a solid 4mm. DRINK LOTS OF WATER!
That's a great question. I worked in landscaping to start, then bagged groceries, worked in restaurants as a dishwasher, busser, and waiter (for quite a few years), did room service at a hotel, worked as a bouncer/barista/bartender, cleaned hotel rooms, worked green chain at a sawmill, had any number of small side jobs like tutoring and building/troubleshooting computers, worked as an IT guy, then software testing, then software test lead, then QA consultant, then I did my MBA and started my career in finance. :) Fortunately, my dad gave me a very strong work ethic and I've been working since I was 14. Joe P.
Great question. Our secret to generating alpha isn't hiring cracked quants, it's something much more innovative. We found a Romanian fortune teller on Fiver a few years back and eventually ended up employing here. She's at least as effective as the 95% of active managers who can't generate alpha. As part of this research exercise she was asked to perform a Vulcan mind meld and extract the most common portfolios out there. This may have overlapped with your holdings.
You're not making a very compelling argument. This is a 20-minute video describing many of the common pitfalls investors make when investing in tech stocks. So you don't think DCA is a good idea. Well, if you want to have the "lump sum vs. DCA" debate we're happy to have that. If you want to sleep better at night, DCA is going to be the better option. For most investors, DCA is what happens when they build wealth over time. Most people don't have lump sums laying around. Moving on to valuation, yes, it's a good idea. That's why we created our simple valuation ratio. Covered here: www.nanalyze.com/2021/06/simple-valuation-ratio-tech-stocks/ Index investing? Covered here: ruclips.net/video/1LYR3hD8VFA/видео.html This isn't a good forum for pissing contests. If you want to critique our content, you'll need to put some effort into it so we all get something from the exchange. ;)
You need to be subscribed to this channel before reading the below comments. Sorry, we don't make the rules.
ruclips.net/user/nanalyze
I’ve commented about this before but am going to keep saying it… love the outdoor backgrounds almost as much as the content! Give us a “Where’s Joe filming from?” series or at least a discord channel about it 😂
Joe P. here. I really got into the backgrounds myself and now I look for them as I'm exploring. :) Starting at the end of this month they're going to change pretty dramatically though. I spend winters abroad exploring in my down time. This year it looks like countries in East Africa. I'll be sure to drop some info on Discord as I go along. ;)
Simply respect that you try to teach us things in a manner like someone would do it to their own children. Very unique nowadays!
Thank you for the kind words! I find the only way I know I understand something is if I explain it simply, not just parrot it as is tempting sometimes. I don't feel I understand something unless I can explain it very simply. Joe P.
I love your channel . Most other trading channels are cheerleaders, you are the reasonable brain on RUclips in regards to this space.
Thank you very much for the kind words.
There are no barriers to entry so anyone can become an "instant analyst." Very few actually have proper industry experience and/or academic experience, and most haven't much actual investing experience either.
So, they resort to parroting whatever easily accessible bull thesis they can find, and they often spend way too much time analyzing minute details that are just noise. When it comes to chasing clout, cheerleading works best to build an audience. We have integrity, and a mission to help people become better investors, so you won't find any of that BS here.
We're investors, not speculators. We buy companies, not stocks. ;) Joe P.
One red flag I sometimes see is companies with barely any revenue, bragging about how big their TAM is. Having a huge total addressable market is the easiest thing in the world. If I start selling sweaty foot flavored soda, my TAM includes that of coca cola and pepsi😂
Totally! Revenues are SO critically important to prove that you a) have a product or service people are willing to pay for and b) you can sell it for substantially more than it costs to produce.
One note on VIEs that a lot of people seem to confuse: if you buy stocks on the Hong Kong exchange instead of the US traded ADR, it’s still a VIE structure. Because the underlying “real” shares are mainland China stocks which are not investable for foreigners to buy. So no, you don’t have a legal advantage when you buy HK stock over ADRs, it’s the same problem.
Thank you very much for this comment! I have been reaching out to some legal experts on this, none of whom have been willing to engage yet. My question surrounds exactly what you said. Is the VIE structure risk for HK listings the same? BABA, for example, is listed in both HK and USA.
One thought is that if China decides to put the hammer down on the USA, the HK listing may be overlooked or treated differently. Regardless of that, VIE structures are not investable from where we're sitting. Joe P.
@@Nanalyze As far as I’m concerned, BABA stock gives the investor a claim on the Alibaba VIE and the Hong stock 9988 on the HK exchange give the investor a direct stake in the VIE, which nonetheless is only the VIE. One BABA share is convertible to 8 shares of 9988.
I can’t estimate how big the risk is that Chinese regulators will somehow ban VIE structures (technically they are already banned, the ban is just not enforced so far!) but it certainly is a risk yes.
@@thelifeofpablo6626 Useful info, thank you
I've also heard of disputes over company chops, but I don't know if it's a serious risk or additional to VIE risk.
@@riffsoffov9291 For those who may not be familiar - "In China, company chops are mandatory for doing business, and replace signatures as used in Western countries." Not familiar with that problem, but have you heard about shadow banking? ;) That's an elephant in the room perhaps not many Westerners know about.
That smirk when you switched from Teradyne to NVDIA at 9:40 lmaoo
Joe you're a legend
In my own mind I am anyways. ;) Joe P.
Superb video, i think legit one of the best packed with good advice
Thank you very much for the positive feedback! I hoped this one would be quite the banger. It describes all the mistakes I've made throughout my investing journey. ;) Joe P.
@@Nanalyze Haha, (some) mistakes I still make daily!
Question: What if I completely discard "Technology", "Telecom" and "Utilities" as categories? For technology I already have plenty as I hold VOO and I am now switching to dividend strategy.
That's absolutely an option. Everyone should tailor their portfolio to fit their own needs. For example, many investors choose to not own REITs if they own their own property which provides them real estate exposure. You can still achieve proper diversification effects without owning a stock in every sector. Great question.
@@Nanalyze thanks so much for your reply. It just seems to me that the concepts of "Technology" and VALUE are almost the opposite. I am actually surprized VIG has so much weight in technology. Technology is growth and dividends are in VALUE. VYM is pretty good w/low tech. exposure. But it's like to make my own and just eliminate Technology, Telecom and Utilities for simplicity. I'll have ~40 stocks but in all other sectors.
Agreed. We always say that the phrase "dividend tech stock" is an oxymoron because tech stocks should be investing in growth.
@@МЕГАПоЗиТИВ-й2е Tech can be value. This piece on growth vs value will help clear up some of the confusion here: ruclips.net/video/_uD-cqElhmg/видео.html
I don't have to do any of that fundamentals du diligence. I just have to get that info from stock analysts from youtube (which includes you), CNBC and online sources. It's funny how sites like Tipranks will show 10 analysts recommendations on a stock and there is a mix of buy, hold, and sell on the very same stock... which comes from from highly educated skilled stock analysts all giving different recommendations. I would never presume to be able to analyze a stock's fundamentals more effectively than any one of those analysts. So... there is a skill to aggregating analyst's analysis and arriving at the correct assessment (hopefully). In my case, I spent 30 years in Tech (systems engineer, tech consultant, etc) working for the biggest: Intel, HP, Digital Equipment, Unisys &others... so that's an advantage.
Good point on the wide variation you'll see from analysts. In my tenure as an investment professional it became very clear to me that these folks take a "throw something at the wall and see what sticks" approach to their craft and their musings aren't very useful, even at the aggregate. Here at Nanalyze we just don't pay any attention to traditional analysts and it helps reduce a lot of market noise. That's not to say there aren't a lot of intelligent people out there analyzing the market. It's just that their findings aren't really useful because - as we know - 95% of investment professionals can't beat the market in the long run. Joe P.
@@Nanalyze
I disagree. I'm talking about professional portfolio managers and hedge fund managers who are providing company fundamentals/other insights/etc information they obtained and assessed for their own stocks/assets under management.
And retail investors like me are still needing to pick stocks/when to invest more (stocks that are in addition to my index fund etfs) where their information is invaluable.
@@lilmsgs Making investment decisions based on the decisions of others doesn't lead to someone becoming a better investor. That's just what I've found over my career as an investment professional. It's a much better idea to establish your own methodology and refine it over time. There is a plethora of quality names out there to choose from and in order to select stocks with conviction you need to make those decisions yourself. It's precisely why we never tell investors what to do. They need to figure it out. You find it valuable to take inspiration from some set of investment professionals that you've selected and that's fine. That isn't a method we would encourage. Joe P.
I felt scolded a few times, so thank you 😂 Good stuff, thanks!
Tough love is tough to give sometimes as well. If we can help you become a better investor then it's all worth it! ;)
Exactly how I felt as well 🤣
A PLTR/TSLA portfolio would have done great if you started in last 2 years.
The point is that having all your assets in just two stocks is a horrible idea. And you only have gains when they're realized. Most of today's rah-rah cheerleader-driven investors have never seen what a correction does to paper gains in volatile stocks.
Overwhelmingly tech is the one sector which has the lowest barriers to entry which is likely due to the low regulation around it, and while it’s seen as the industry which disrupts others it more frequently gets disrupted itself…..by new technology lol
As always the most well run, well capitalized companies will rise. It just comes down to finding one which has a durable MOAT, few competitors and isn’t trading at insane valuations. So basically finding a needle in a haystack.
Good comment. There is a lot of junk and noise. In a bull market few people realize that risk goes both ways. And sometimes very suddenly.
I'm not sure how relevant moats are to tech companies. I believe Apple has a moat, but it derives from the brand rather than the tech. Years ago I read an article where the author claimed the tech industry was like a series of games, mostly winner-takes-all or winners-take-most, and I think that's a reasonable description, though it doesn't cover every nuance. IBM won the game in mainframes, and its moat there might be stronger than ever, but that's now quite a small part of the computing market. Maybe IBM will be a winner in quantum computing, but that's too hard for me to predict. Intel might have looked like they had a moat in processors, but they're now competing with AMD in X86, while ARM-based processors are taking share, Nvidia is so far winning the game in AI and High Performance Computing accelerators, and Intel lost their foundry lead. In their early days, Intel were losing the game against Japanese memory-makers, and decided to concentrate on CPUs. That worked out very well for decades, so maybe it was durable enough to qualify as a moat, but it didn't have the staying power of Coca-Cola. So, I think tech management generally needs to be nimble and opportunistic (and constructively paranoid?). When it isn't, tech investors might need those same qualities, or at least a framework that gives them good enough exits.
Good comment. So the extent to which a number of competing companies passes around customers is referred to as "dynamism" according to McKinsey. Seems like the opposite of a moat when customers can easily switch. IBM became too comfortable with their success and suffered as a result. We'll see if they can turn that ship around.
@@Nanalyze I think that getting too comfortable can explain a lot of failures, it's just more dangerous in tech. Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, but there's a guy called Sandy Munro who's been in the auto business since the 70s, and he started a consultancy in 1988, built around "Lean Design" (which he trademarked). There's a video where he says, there came a point when US carmakers weren't giving him business, and one of them said he should try China, which he did. In China, they were very keen to learn and apply his methods, and the fruits of that are now especially obvious in EVs. I'm sure he doesn't claim all the success for himself, rather it's the willingness in China to learn, improve and innovate. He says the US carmakers suffered from "affluenza", and I suppose for a while they were making money too easily to be motivated to innovate. Or maybe it was the executives who were too comfortable.
Chinese automakers jumped way ahead in the past decade. They're building quality cars and selling them for very cheap. "Made in China" no longer has the taboo it once did.
Nice snipe on Chinese stocks
Here's a comprehensive video on the topic: ruclips.net/video/np6_Zeu960U/видео.html
Hey Joe, sounds like you described Elon Musk's Tesla here. LOL, now I'm waiting for the fan bois attacking me as a short seller. And yes, they have revenue but everything else is a red flag as Joe described.
The fundamentals seem sound for Tesla as an auto company but - as an auto company - they're highly overvalued. Promises of future growth coming from Musk hold a lot more credibility though given his past accomplishments. Yep, you can't be critical about a fan boy stock without a bunch of tool bags coming around and harassing you. Just as a general comment, in our community we encourage people to be most critical of names they're most bullish about. :) Joe P.
@ Appreciate to set the standards like this, Joe. BTW, where is that wonderful scenery that I always see in the background. Doesn’t look like HK to me.
@@AndreasWest :) I've been hanging out in the Pacific Northwest this summer. Will be back to HK for a bit early next year. It's probably my favorite place in the whole wide world.
@ If you’re in Singapore let me know. Can meet for coffee.
I like the island outside of HK with the giant Buddha statue and that old section with the stairs and escalator, lots of vibes there but probably not a good place to live in peace.
@@AndreasWest That would be great! I love to meet subscribers as I'm traveling. Currently in Dubai for a week.
What most people don't know about HK is like 80% is forested and full of nice peaceful trails. I used to live up by the escalator for a while but much more enjoyed living in Aberdeen. HK is a place that's best enjoyed living in, but it's not overly great for visiting to be honest. Singapore has some stellar food and is worth visiting for that alone. Joe P.
What are VIE's and why are they a cause of major concern?
Good question. It's explained in great detail here: ruclips.net/video/np6_Zeu960U/видео.html
Paper of a stock but paper saying its not your stock 😜
@@jerm184 Correct. VIEs specifically state the holder has no legal right to the underlying shares they believe they hold. Crazy but true.
Im literally watching this and trying to pick a kidney stone out of my .... . NO JOKE. VERY PAINFUL
UPDATE: Its out. I had to sanitize some tweezers and gently pull it out. Im going say its a solid 4mm.
DRINK LOTS OF WATER!
Don't be afraid to wash away those woes with some of Grand Pappy's cough medicine.
@@Nanalyze😂😂
After seeing quite a few of your videos, how many jobs did you have previously ?
That's a great question. I worked in landscaping to start, then bagged groceries, worked in restaurants as a dishwasher, busser, and waiter (for quite a few years), did room service at a hotel, worked as a bouncer/barista/bartender, cleaned hotel rooms, worked green chain at a sawmill, had any number of small side jobs like tutoring and building/troubleshooting computers, worked as an IT guy, then software testing, then software test lead, then QA consultant, then I did my MBA and started my career in finance. :) Fortunately, my dad gave me a very strong work ethic and I've been working since I was 14. Joe P.
Enough nuggets for a gold mine.
Thank you for the kind words! I've made all the mistakes, some twice, and I hope this piece helps others avoid the most common ones. Joe P.
How did you know exactly what was in my portfolio???? lol
Great question. Our secret to generating alpha isn't hiring cracked quants, it's something much more innovative. We found a Romanian fortune teller on Fiver a few years back and eventually ended up employing here. She's at least as effective as the 95% of active managers who can't generate alpha. As part of this research exercise she was asked to perform a Vulcan mind meld and extract the most common portfolios out there. This may have overlapped with your holdings.
@@Nanalyze love it! keep up the great work
😂😂😂 this is not how investing works
DCA is a stupid way of buying. If you can not value a stock forget investing. Put your money in an INDEX
You're not making a very compelling argument. This is a 20-minute video describing many of the common pitfalls investors make when investing in tech stocks.
So you don't think DCA is a good idea. Well, if you want to have the "lump sum vs. DCA" debate we're happy to have that. If you want to sleep better at night, DCA is going to be the better option. For most investors, DCA is what happens when they build wealth over time. Most people don't have lump sums laying around.
Moving on to valuation, yes, it's a good idea. That's why we created our simple valuation ratio. Covered here: www.nanalyze.com/2021/06/simple-valuation-ratio-tech-stocks/
Index investing? Covered here: ruclips.net/video/1LYR3hD8VFA/видео.html
This isn't a good forum for pissing contests. If you want to critique our content, you'll need to put some effort into it so we all get something from the exchange. ;)