The next edition of bitcoinizing the world without using the word "bitcoin", denlillaapan style.
In a sly, roundabout way what I'm trying to do in this article is "debunking" fundamental analysis (#836811) —and sort of probe "no intrinsic value" type people to accept that maybe, just maaaybe heretic ideas like bitcoin might be worth looking at.
I learned stock analysis and financial accounting from an online nym called “Lundaluppen.” It was the early 2010s, blogging was all the rage, interest rates were crashing toward zero, and the central bank-fueled stock market was turning into the only game in town.
Only over time did I learn that his approach was called “fundamental analysis” and that it stemmed, via Warren Buffett, from an early-to-mid-20th century investor by the name of Benjamin Graham. Graham’s book, The Intelligent Investor, first written in 1949 and published in updated editions, contained everything a securities analyst would want, from how to read an annual report and assess the value of a business to create (and follow!) disciplined investment steps for oneself.
Also snuck in a nice SN link here (hashtag gimme-gimme-gimme those sweeet referral rewards!):
But I keep getting the sense that none of this really matters anymore. We’re in a new world now, dominated not by company performance or earnings projections, but macro news and liquidity flows. An ever-faster rising money tide raises all boats, with assets’ monetary premium running the show much more than which company is cash flow positive or whose stock trades at below working capital. (Screening for such criteria today, notes Zweig, produces a string of biotech and hopeful pharma companies, neither recommend themselves for investment to his average reader.)
I run through Jason Zweig's excellent new edition of Graham's classic book, only to set up the kicker:
"for all the talk about the importance of strict investment analysis over the years, it’s setting them aside for those generational investments (and letting those run) that truly made these individual investors rich."
...and yes, @Undisciplined, this post (plus its predecessor two weeks back, #836811) is why SN works so great for me as a writer:
- spread my writing further/into other channels that might not monitor TDE as much as I do;
- provide extra commentary that either didn't make it into the piece or was "my mentality when writing";
- get some sweet extra sats in the process (THANK YOU KINDLY, STACKERS! lots of love)
That's it. Lemme know what you think, Stackers!