<<The intent wasn't to bad mouth the Fool. Merely to support Michael's position that QCOM merited review as a possible rule breaker. I used historical record to make the point that even the Gardner's can misjudge what is and is not a good investment.>>Since even the brothers Gardner publicly admit (many times) that they have made boneheaded picks in the past, I'm not sure what you mean by this.<<In this specific case, I just found it interesting how poorly their holdings held up the past two months compared to QCOM. If you had invested $10,000 in their picks, you would now have about $7,000. If instead you bet on QCOM, you would have double that! >>Um, if you (the generic you, not you specifically) had invested $10,000 in their picks without doing any research on your own, and (in your words) placed a "bet" on the Fool portfolio, then you would have totally lost the message the Fools are trying to convey: do your own research, do your own research, do your own research, then buy.This goes for blindly following anyone's suggestions about QCOM as well.Also note that the site is committed toward treating the buying and selling of stocks as INVESTMENTS and not GAMBLING (i.e. "placing your bets on QCOM").
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Rat