junglebeast said:
So true..nobody really wants to share their full wisdom, which means everything you ever read is all just half-truths, some of it half-false intentionally, and even more of it half-false due to other peoples' ignorance.
Absolutely. There's a huge inherent conflict of interest involved in producing books or TV shows on investing. It has been shown time and time again that all of the books and TV shows which bill themselves as small-investor advocates (Mad Money, CNBC in general, for example) are really selling snake-oil, encouraging novices to play a game which they cannot hope to win.
It's very instructive to remember that short-term movements in stock prices have absolutely nothing to do with the underlying company. When you make short-term investments, you are choosing to compete directly with other investors in a very abstract way that has nothing to do with how good or bad a company is or might be in the future. It's just a symbol on a screen.
Investment firms spend ridiculous amounts of money developing computer systems which allow them to covertly move vast quantities of money through the market, trickling it through thousands of small orders placed through market makers around the globe. They do this to simulate "real" market movements. All it takes is a few million dollars to literally make any stock go up or down at will. They have access to vast amounts of statistics that allow them to see quite plainly when the stock has been oversold or overbought, and they can act instantly to take advantage of that knowledge, turning a bump of a few pennies in a stock price into a windfall, when multiplied by millions of shares.
The high-profile, poster-boy stocks like AAPL, MSFT, etc. are actually those which violate the efficient market hypothesis most egregiously. They are, quite simply, the most manipulated stocks. It is not coincidental that these poster-boy stocks are the most attractive to novices.
Day trading, as an individual, is a fool's game.
- Warren