/biz/ - Business & Finance

Well, they definitely can't go lower...

I guess you've got it nailed. What are you waiting for?

>>380094

>My plan is to go onto yahoo finance and look at stocks that are near their 52wk low price. I will invest in these stocks, since the only place they can go is up, up, up.

0/10

>>380094
This was my plan when I was 15yrs old. I lost a thousand dollars before realizing it was a bad one.

Good idea OP, also to make the most profit, put all of your money into the lowest priced shares you xan

>>380094
Fucking hell that proof is so retarded. Replace all the "b"'s with "a"s and you get 0=0 by the 3rd step.

>>380094
Or even better, to show that your proof skills sucks, on step 5 subtract "b" from both sides. Then you get a=0, which according to the initial statement "A and B be equal non-zero quantities" is a contradiction.

Either way, 2 =/= 1

>>380119
Done divided by zero there.

>A=B
>(A-B)=0
>Still dividing out (A-B)
>Lawl 2=1

>>380135
Yup, which is exactly why I said "you get 0=0 by the 3rd step".

Also the "proof" contradicts itself immediately after the division step.

I love watching non-math plebs regurgitate this "proof" and amazing their family and friends.

On topic, you're dealing with a myriad of variables investing in the 52 wk low priced stock(which is a stupid way to search out stocks)... failing business, media rumors, change in management, poor valuation for whatever reason(quarterly reports, products etc.) To rely on the fact that you think they'll recover is not the safest bet. And even if they do... over what time frame do they recover? Would you have not been better investing in a simple market index fund during that time?

If you're going to start investing in these teetering companies, make sure you do your homework and see that they're poised for recovery or growth, otherwise you'll be sitting on wasted investment/time, or worse, lose all your money.

That being said, I have found a little success in doing this. Invested in UA, CBPO, BBRY during downturns earlier this year, with 30% return so far. But, that's probably just dumb luck and if I was smart, I would sell my positions and just invest in vanguard index funds(protip: I'm not smart because it's too fun gambling my future on stocks.)

>>380115
>>380119
>>380140
Epic, just epic.

>>380094

>trying to catch falling knives

The only reason to buy a stock that's in freefall like you plan is if the very information you're buying is enough to staunch the bleeding. Warren Buffet and a few others can probably do this. You can't.

>>380094
>My plan is to go onto yahoo finance and look at stocks that are near their 52wk low price. I will invest in these stocks, since the only place they can go is up, up, up.

check out New Leads International (NEWL), their stock price is at an all time 52 week low, used to be 800, now it's at 0.50. That's right, only 50 cents! They're going through some rough times right now, which is why their stock price is so low but, if you buy in now, goddamn, man, you'll be filthy rich. If you invest just 1,000 dollars now and wait for it to go to even just 10 dollars (a fraction of what it used to be) damn, man, your 1000 will be 17,000.

>>380094
Dividing by 0 is not allowed as it gives you an undefined answer. Everything past step 5, is gibberish.

>most people should be able to arrive at this conclusion

>>380094
Read the intelligent investor and you might actually have an idea on how to make money with stocks.

>>380094

buying "cheap" stocks is usually a very bad idea. you are basically trying to call a bottom, and as someone pointed out, catch a falling knife. you don't know when it will bottom out, nobody does.

it is a much better idea to buy stocks that are at 52 week high. the odds are that the prevailing trend will continue.

buy strong stocks, not weak ones. buy in an up trend, don't short it. short or stay away from a down trend, don't buy it.

>>380119
The mistake is that
a = b
a - b = 0
dividing by (a-b) is dividing by 0 and impossible