I am of the opinion that bulls are a completely different species when compared to bears. We cannot view one within the lens which we usually use for the other. We also cannot measure them using the same ruler.

Bulls are primarily people who are willing to take on some form of risk for future gain. Some slight and some betting the entire house, the quantum of risk can vary but the acceptance of it is the key. We use the term "herd" or "falling off a cliff" to refer to the worst outcome a bull can incur. Taking on great personal harm in chasing those gains. This worst outcome for bulls is also the main perspective bears have when viewing bulls. Bulls that display the most risky behaviour in throwing money at situations where ignorance and confirmation bias is most prevalent is the classic poster child for the pitfalls of investing.

Bears however are categorised by their loss aversion. They never want to be the sucker that loses money in an investment. Hence they rarely even invest. Most tout the same doomsday message every single year until they get it right. The most validating scenario for a bear is where everyone loses money but they remain safe because of their loss aversion tendencies. A bear is best identified by non-investment in most areas save the most classic of tools, property and blue chip stocks at most. If any. If bulls are characterised by sheep running off a cliff as the worst case scenario, how about bears? It is the frog who slowly gets boiled alive. By not taking on any significant risk, a bear will not lose money by their own actions. Exactly the reward they need psychologically. But this will mean instead of active losses, they will slowly bleed value by inflationary forces. The worse time for a bear is when inflation is high. But because the losses is in the form of value but the total sum of cash remains the same, they never feel it.

Now a bear is very different from a bull who feels bearish. If a person thinks the market is going to crash and shorts it, that is a bull who is feeling bearish. If a person thinks the market is going to crash every year and doesn't have significant equity investments, that is probably a bear. Or a perma bear. A bear who feels bullish might have a lot of noise about it socially, but rarely will invest a significant sum.
Now in terms of investing, is it better to be a bull or a bear?

The data is clear following the past 100 years of market movements. We usually hear investors on average are better off investing than not. But this is using the Law of Large Numbers which may not apply to you personally. The structure of the next sentence is important, so here goes. Among long term investors, there will be more investors that end up with net gains than investors that end up with net losses. For the bears, generally it is the reverse.

This is a personal thought experiment so the data I use is based on personal experience, nothing more. Think of a scale from 1 - 100 that categorises all people (bulls & bears). The 1st percentile are those who have lost everything in their lives. The 99th percentile are those who have gotten incredibly rich. Everybody in the bottom 20% percentile are bulls. Everybody in the top 30% are also bulls. Everything in the middle from the 20th percentile to the 70th percentile will be a combination of bulls and bears. In this world, there are more bulls than bears because of evolution and human psychology. Bears can have a net gain, but more bears will have a net loss purely because of loss aversion tendencies which leaves them vulnerable to invisible inflationary factors.

So generally, it is better to be a bull than a bear.
Sometimes, bulls get unlucky and there is nothing you can do to avoid black swan events. Like Apple or Coca Cola suddenly going into bankruptcy. Sometimes bears get lucky, because they are staying in Japan with a negative inflation rate. That is all part of life, and the only thing you can do is to make sure you have the knowledge to identify the type of environment you are in.

Just don't be a bull who throws money at "opportunities" without thinking because your best friend says it is a sure win trade or has made 30% profit in 1 month. That is neither a bull nor a bear. That is the third species, a scam victim.

i dunno....i never make it a point to use 'cheapness' as a point of 'buying' a stock.
i just dun have this in me...
now if this was really in watchlist...
the circled area would have be where I would be taking out my bow and arrow...

Remember what I wrote last Sep?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Just doing some catch up reading. Saw the Macquaire report posted on the Edge.
https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/macq...dodTqG_vndeEjEI

This part is most utterly interesting imo.


Macquarie expects Top Glove to post a net profit of RM1.75 billion for FY20, which will rise to RM10.3 billion FY21, before easing to RM2.02 billion for FY22.

1) Those numbers are far more optimistic really.

2) look at those numbers. 10 bil profit for fy21!!!!!

3) Just like reports from CIMB, the fy 22 does notlook promising. From 10 bil profit, they expect profits to ease to 2 bil. Ease is such a gentle word here. Cos it literally says profits is expected to plunge a lot in fy 22.

4) They cite fy numbers. The proper standard unlike those local jokers who used CY numbers.

5) let's compare. The latest  cimb report the other day.



The arrows. They too highlight a plunge in earnings come fy22.

6)  now unlike cimb, the folks at M, they are calling out the decline... which I believe they have a solid case. Moving forward, the glove makers profits are like a time bomb... earnings will plunge once the ASP normalises... which to me sound logical.

Well.. do think about it.

And yeah, you know me.. I have no position now and I don't think I will want any position in the near future...

GL
================================================================

see my point?

In that post, I only highlighted CIMB report. But the market, they HAD the numbers .... but they did not CALL it based it on those numbers.... unlike the gal from Macquarie. 

And yup... those sin kahs, they dismissed Macquarie as a report used to manipulate the stock lower just because of a call warrant in the money.