Your opinion of HP might very well be true. But because the market tracks inflation, today HP is worth 3 times what it was in 2019. This means that they have been holding their value. I hope you put some of your money in their stock.
On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 23:15:26 GMT, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Your opinion of HP might very well be true. But because the market tracks inflation, today HP is worth 3 times what it was in 2019. This means that they have been holding their value. I hope you put some of your money in their stock.
In 2019, HP stock was worth about $20. Today, it's worth about $35.
That's a net increase of 35 / 20 = 1.75 times in the past 5 years.
If HP was really "worth 3 times what it was in 2019", then it should
now be selling for $60/share.
On 6/5/2024 9:31 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 23:15:26 GMT, Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Your opinion of HP might very well be true. But because
the market tracks inflation, today HP is worth 3 times
what it was in 2019. This means that they have been
holding their value. I hope you put some of your money in
their stock.
In 2019, HP stock was worth about $20. Today, it's worth
about $35.
That's a net increase of 35 / 20 = 1.75 times in the
past 5 years.
If HP was really "worth 3 times what it was in 2019", then
it should
now be selling for $60/share.
What I _should_ have done was leave my Agilent shares alone.
As I mentioned previously, HP is a shell of its former self.
When the Agilent split happened, all my HP were converted to
Agilent 1:1, IIRC the shares were in the $25 range at the
time. We weren't given a choice for the options, but were
asked of we wanted to keep owned-shares of HP or convert
them. Given my distaste for what the Fiorina regime did to
HP, I chose to convert. Finally, ~15 years after I had been
laid off, I was in a review with my financial planner and we
noted the lackluster performance of Agilent, so I sold it
all and invested in a mutual fund.
Converting everything to agilent was a good move, selling it
all later....Bad move.
From 2019 on, Agilent has been performing brilliantly,
going from ~ $25/share when I sold to the mid 100's ($133 as
of this message). HP is still only in the $30 range. Given
over 20 years of inflation I would have lost money if I left
any in HP. Still, the mutual fund is doing well and I've
made reasonable gains - well more than if I left it in HP,
but not as well as if I had left it in Agilent.
On 6/5/2024 9:31 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 23:15:26 GMT, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Your opinion of HP might very well be true. But because the market tracks inflation, today HP is worth 3 times what it was in 2019. This means that they have been holding their value. I hope you put some of your money in their stock.
In 2019, HP stock was worth about $20. Today, it's worth about $35.
That's a net increase of 35 / 20 = 1.75 times in the past 5 years.
If HP was really "worth 3 times what it was in 2019", then it should
now be selling for $60/share.
What I _should_ have done was leave my Agilent shares alone. As I
mentioned previously, HP is a shell of its former self. When the Agilent >split happened, all my HP were converted to Agilent 1:1, IIRC the shares
were in the $25 range at the time. We weren't given a choice for the
options, but were asked of we wanted to keep owned-shares of HP or
convert them. Given my distaste for what the Fiorina regime did to HP, I >chose to convert. Finally, ~15 years after I had been laid off, I was in
a review with my financial planner and we noted the lackluster
performance of Agilent, so I sold it all and invested in a mutual fund.
Converting everything to agilent was a good move, selling it all
later....Bad move.
From 2019 on, Agilent has been performing brilliantly, going from ~
$25/share when I sold to the mid 100's ($133 as of this message). HP is
still only in the $30 range. Given over 20 years of inflation I would
have lost money if I left any in HP. Still, the mutual fund is doing
well and I've made reasonable gains - well more than if I left it in HP,
but not as well as if I had left it in Agilent.
On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 07:37:31 -0400, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/5/2024 9:31 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 23:15:26 GMT, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Your opinion of HP might very well be true. But because the market tracks inflation, today HP is worth 3 times what it was in 2019. This means that they have been holding their value. I hope you put some of your money in their stock.
In 2019, HP stock was worth about $20. Today, it's worth about $35.
That's a net increase of 35 / 20 = 1.75 times in the past 5 years.
If HP was really "worth 3 times what it was in 2019", then it should
now be selling for $60/share.
What I _should_ have done was leave my Agilent shares alone. As I
mentioned previously, HP is a shell of its former self. When the Agilent
split happened, all my HP were converted to Agilent 1:1, IIRC the shares
were in the $25 range at the time. We weren't given a choice for the
options, but were asked of we wanted to keep owned-shares of HP or
convert them. Given my distaste for what the Fiorina regime did to HP, I
chose to convert. Finally, ~15 years after I had been laid off, I was in
a review with my financial planner and we noted the lackluster
performance of Agilent, so I sold it all and invested in a mutual fund.
Converting everything to agilent was a good move, selling it all
later....Bad move.
From 2019 on, Agilent has been performing brilliantly, going from ~
$25/share when I sold to the mid 100's ($133 as of this message). HP is
still only in the $30 range. Given over 20 years of inflation I would
have lost money if I left any in HP. Still, the mutual fund is doing
well and I've made reasonable gains - well more than if I left it in HP,
but not as well as if I had left it in Agilent.
Thanks for the details. I don't want to tell my tale of stock market
woe. I lost badly in the "black Monday" crash in 1987 and repeated
the mistake (to a lesser degree) with the dot-com bubble in 2000. I
did well in the 1990's but stayed in the market too long. Since then,
I've been risk averse and have avoided any investments in the stock
market. Avoiding the stock market may soon turn into another mistake
as my savings are rapidly being eroded by inflation. It's not a
pretty picture, but at least I have no debt and I have enough cash to survive.
On 6/6/2024 1:03 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 07:37:31 -0400, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/5/2024 9:31 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Wed, 05 Jun 2024 23:15:26 GMT, Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Your opinion of HP might very well be true. But because
the market tracks inflation, today HP is worth 3 times
what it was in 2019. This means that they have been
holding their value. I hope you put some of your money
in their stock.
In 2019, HP stock was worth about $20. Today, it's
worth about $35.
That's a net increase of 35 / 20 = 1.75 times in the
past 5 years.
If HP was really "worth 3 times what it was in 2019",
then it should
now be selling for $60/share.
What I _should_ have done was leave my Agilent shares
alone. As I
mentioned previously, HP is a shell of its former self.
When the Agilent
split happened, all my HP were converted to Agilent 1:1,
IIRC the shares
were in the $25 range at the time. We weren't given a
choice for the
options, but were asked of we wanted to keep owned-shares
of HP or
convert them. Given my distaste for what the Fiorina
regime did to HP, I
chose to convert. Finally, ~15 years after I had been
laid off, I was in
a review with my financial planner and we noted the
lackluster
performance of Agilent, so I sold it all and invested in
a mutual fund.
Converting everything to agilent was a good move, selling
it all
later....Bad move.
 From 2019 on, Agilent has been performing brilliantly,
going from ~
$25/share when I sold to the mid 100's ($133 as of this
message). HP is
still only in the $30 range. Given over 20 years of
inflation I would
have lost money if I left any in HP. Still, the mutual
fund is doing
well and I've made reasonable gains - well more than if I
left it in HP,
but not as well as if I had left it in Agilent.
Thanks for the details. I don't want to tell my tale of
stock market
woe. I lost badly in the "black Monday" crash in 1987 and
repeated
the mistake (to a lesser degree) with the dot-com bubble
in 2000. I
did well in the 1990's but stayed in the market too long.
Since then,
I've been risk averse and have avoided any investments in
the stock
market. Avoiding the stock market may soon turn into
another mistake
as my savings are rapidly being eroded by inflation. It's
not a
pretty picture, but at least I have no debt and I have
enough cash to
survive.
It's a guessing game for the vast majority of casual
investors. In some cases little better than a casino.
On 6/6/2024 1:03 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Thanks for the details. I don't want to tell my tale of stock market
woe. I lost badly in the "black Monday" crash in 1987 and repeated
the mistake (to a lesser degree) with the dot-com bubble in 2000. I
did well in the 1990's but stayed in the market too long. Since then,
I've been risk averse and have avoided any investments in the stock
market. Avoiding the stock market may soon turn into another mistake
as my savings are rapidly being eroded by inflation. It's not a
pretty picture, but at least I have no debt and I have enough cash to
survive.
It's a guessing game for the vast majority of casual investors. In some
cases little better than a casino.
Am 06.06.2024 um 22:41 schrieb Zen Cycle:
On 6/6/2024 1:03 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Thanks for the details. I don't want to tell my tale of stock market
woe. I lost badly in the "black Monday" crash in 1987 and repeated
the mistake (to a lesser degree) with the dot-com bubble in 2000. I
did well in the 1990's but stayed in the market too long. Since then,
I've been risk averse and have avoided any investments in the stock
market. Avoiding the stock market may soon turn into another mistake
as my savings are rapidly being eroded by inflation. It's not a
pretty picture, but at least I have no debt and I have enough cash to
survive.
It's a guessing game for the vast majority of casual investors. In some
cases little better than a casino.
The best "casual" investment tip definitely was around by 1995 (website
"the motley fool"):
Buy individual shares only for gambling. Invest into index funds
following a very broad index (e.g. S&P 500 or MSCI world index) and hold
for a minimum of 20 years.
This way, the crashes in 1987, 2001 and 2008 would have been relatively >unimportant.
Rolf "followed through after the 2008 crash once ETF existed"
On 6/7/2024 10:31 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 12:43:03 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:
The best "casual" investment tip definitely was around by
1995 (website
"the motley fool"):
Buy individual shares only for gambling. Invest into
index funds
following a very broad index (e.g. S&P 500 or MSCI world
index) and hold
for a minimum of 20 years.
This way, the crashes in 1987, 2001 and 2008 would have
been relatively
unimportant.
Rolf "followed through after the 2008 crash once ETF
existed"
Some advice I've received was:
"It's ok to risk your surplus cash and profits from previous
investments. It's not ok to invest the interest bearing
principal."
Such conservative advice hasn't made me any money, but has
saved me
from investing everything and ending up with nothing,
which is what
I've seen happen a few times.
I had some moderate success in choosing certain bond funds.
I had some small failures in choosing individual stocks. But
I've never been interested enough to devote the necessary
time do deep study of investing.
My best move was hiring a well-recommended person to deal
with my money, give strategic advice, etc. She has decades
of experience in the field, has an outstanding reputation
and knows far, far more than I'll ever know about investing.
I wish I'd hired her much sooner than I did.
On 6/7/2024 9:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/7/2024 10:31 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 12:43:03 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:
The best "casual" investment tip definitely was around
by 1995 (website
"the motley fool"):
Buy individual shares only for gambling. Invest into
index funds
following a very broad index (e.g. S&P 500 or MSCI world
index) and hold
for a minimum of 20 years.
This way, the crashes in 1987, 2001 and 2008 would have
been relatively
unimportant.
Rolf "followed through after the 2008 crash once ETF
existed"
Some advice I've received was:
"It's ok to risk your surplus cash and profits from previous
investments. It's not ok to invest the interest bearing
principal."
Such conservative advice hasn't made me any money, but
has saved me
from investing everything and ending up with nothing,
which is what
I've seen happen a few times.
I had some moderate success in choosing certain bond
funds. I had some small failures in choosing individual
stocks. But I've never been interested enough to devote
the necessary time do deep study of investing.
My best move was hiring a well-recommended person to deal
with my money, give strategic advice, etc. She has decades
of experience in the field, has an outstanding reputation
and knows far, far more than I'll ever know about
investing. I wish I'd hired her much sooner than I did.
With no comment on her proficiency, and I trust she is
sincere, almost no investment managers beat an index fund
for net return after fees over a ten year period.
On 6/7/2024 1:58 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 6/7/2024 9:56 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/7/2024 10:31 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 12:43:03 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de>
wrote:
The best "casual" investment tip definitely was around
by 1995 (website
"the motley fool"):
Buy individual shares only for gambling. Invest into
index funds
following a very broad index (e.g. S&P 500 or MSCI
world index) and hold
for a minimum of 20 years.
This way, the crashes in 1987, 2001 and 2008 would have
been relatively
unimportant.
Rolf "followed through after the 2008 crash once ETF
existed"
Some advice I've received was:
"It's ok to risk your surplus cash and profits from
previous
investments. It's not ok to invest the interest bearing
principal."
Such conservative advice hasn't made me any money, but
has saved me
from investing everything and ending up with nothing,
which is what
I've seen happen a few times.
I had some moderate success in choosing certain bond
funds. I had some small failures in choosing individual
stocks. But I've never been interested enough to devote
the necessary time do deep study of investing.
My best move was hiring a well-recommended person to deal
with my money, give strategic advice, etc. She has
decades of experience in the field, has an outstanding
reputation and knows far, far more than I'll ever know
about investing. I wish I'd hired her much sooner than I
did.
With no comment on her proficiency, and I trust she is
sincere, almost no investment managers beat an index fund
for net return after fees over a ten year period.
Agreed. But she's also been a source of advice for planning
for long term needs, consultation on estate planning,
balancing investments, tax strategies and more. I'm happy to
do much less thinking about such issues.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 379 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 20:08:24 |
| Calls: | 8,133 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,082 |
| Messages: | 5,856,154 |