> By that analysis, Google "left the station" in what, 2005?
By that analysis, Google has most likely experienced the majority of its growth, and its current price reflects not only its actual value but the psychology of investors who try to buy into companies that are already successful, expecting that future returns will reflect past performance (the single most common investor mistake).
> Buffet looks for companies with good fundamentals and returns ...
EDIT: Given that lutusp is bizarrely distancing themselves from their own claims (or rather holding their comments as ever mutable and ethereal all-encompassing statements that mean everything yet mean nothing), this thread is futile.
>> Google has most likely experienced the majority of its growth
> That does not follow.
Qualified opinions don't need to follow logically. If I had wanted to make a testable claim about a deterministic outcome, surely I would have avoided saying "most likely". Imagine an airline pilot saying, "Folks, we'll most likely land safely today".
> You're stating completely subjective things and presenting them as fact.
Prove it. Did I assert my claim as fact, or did I say "most likely"? Which of these common English words is causing you the most confusion? Locate my use of the word "fact" or any of its synonyms.
> If you think you can call the market by the "it has grown, therefore it will fall" ...
That is not a claim I made, that is a claim you made. I don't have to defend it, you do. The burden of evidence is yours.
In short, you need to find someone else to have your non-debate with, someone else for whom you can invent their position, then argue against it.
> EDIT: Given that lutusp is bizarrely distancing themselves from their own claims (or rather holding their comments as ever mutable and ethereal all-encompassing statements that mean everything yet mean nothing), this thread is futile.
Sincerely, get professional help. As things stand, people who reply to your posts might be temporarily misled into thinking they're communicating with someone who recognizes the existence of people other than himself.
By that analysis, Google has most likely experienced the majority of its growth, and its current price reflects not only its actual value but the psychology of investors who try to buy into companies that are already successful, expecting that future returns will reflect past performance (the single most common investor mistake).
> Buffet looks for companies with good fundamentals and returns ...
No, he looks for companies that are undervalued.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/undervalued.asp
Quote: "Buying stocks when they are undervalued is a key component of mogul Warren Buffett's value investing strategy."
> Small doesn't mean growing. Large doesn't mean shrinking. Any analysis that assumes either is simply flawed.
Then it's a good thing I never made these claims -- they're yours, not mine.