I prefer big name and big cap one that fund managers can buy those one.

Second liners stocks are hard to play as sometimes stocks can be cheap but due to liquidity issue, fund managers can't buy while retailers also not interested in it, (most retailers like those quick 'goreng' counters) that makes the stocks hardly move and stock price can stay undervalued for long time.

Just my personal preference, nothing right or wrong.

good one.

We are having same taste as fund managers. Haha.

Seriously, second and third liner stocks in KLSE did have problem of liquidity issue. Some hardly trade more than several hundred lots/day or some don't trade at all sometimes.

FYI, in 2005-2007, all bourses in the world are registering hefty gain across. Those bourses registered less than 10-15% pa in this period considered poor already.
9/10 stocks gain in this environment may be considered so so or on par only. Better use benchmarking comparison to see whether the stock pick is outperforming the market or underperforming, then it is much better way for judging and comparison.
Not mean to criticise or have any comment on the stock pick by them. Just to highlight the issue and background of the market so that people will compare it in a much more fair way.

Just my 2 cents.

This post has been edited by cherroy: Dec 26 2007, 11:21 AM

One must always know the reason, if no reason then it is as same randomly 'tembak' already.

Buying a stock must have a or some reasons of it: cheap? high dividend yield? undervalued? return rate better than others alternative? going to rise (goreng)?
Whether you get it right then this is another story.