Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
I guess Gloomberg thought showing percentage declines would not catch readers' attention!
I generally do not read their articles or watch them except occasionally Bloomberg Technology and ETF IQ and regularly Real Yield. Even then I have to apply filters. I know we have Bloomberg fans in the forum.
Nvidia employees and insiders sell their stock in droves for a reason. No other large tech company in Silicon Valley sees NVDA level of lumpy insider stock sales because NVDA goes from one flame out (or use case) to the next.
When not in a recession or SPX not in a bear market, the largest single day decline for NVDA stock was 35% which in August 2004. There were two other worse declines in similar circumstances than the decline on Monday (16.4%), which happens to be the 9th worst in its history.
Now you can see the value of Gloomberg reporting in the OP. I am not singling out Gloomberg.
NVDA had 8 of the top 10 market cap losses in one day. NVDA also had 5 of the top 10 market cap gains in one day. Skip to the 4:37 mark for NVDA info/chart.
When not in a recession or SPX not in a bear market, the largest single day decline for NVDA stock was 35% which in August 2004. There were two other worse declines in similar circumstances than the decline on Monday (16.4%), which happens to be the 9th worst in its history.
Now you can see the value of Gloomberg reporting in the OP. I am not singling out Gloomberg.
Maybe, but NVDA's market cap in 2004 was *nowhere* what it is nowdays, so a 35% drop then would probably be tiny compared to even a 15% drop today, yes?
'Gloomberg ...' *chuckle* Still more useful than the Clownish Network for Business Chatter!
I think Observant’s post is instructive if my post was not.
All media push too much gloom - I think it is a part of their current business model. I do not think it was like that when I was growing up. Now, I only check for headlines and that too sometimes I have to cross check with another source.
I think Jonathan Farro at Gloomberg and John Forte at the Comcast Channel are a cut above. I think Kelly Evans at Comcast will gain prominence.
@BaluBalu -- I agree. Farro is great (as are his co-hosts) and Kelly Evans has evolved quite nicely since starting off at WSJ digital many years ago, when her quick daily recaps would air just before Cramer.
I believe I posted something similar to @rforno’s Bloomberg data back on January 27 under @Mark’s ”Howard Marks” thread. Here it is (scroll up a bit).
Re: the ongoing discussion (as much about sources as NVDA), I’d agree cable “financial” television is pretty worthless, often inaccurate, slanted or misleading. Most days a parade of clowns talking their book sums it up nicely. Subscribers to Bloomberg’s online resources and print stories, however, fare much better. There are troves of data on virtually every global market and continuous updates 24/7. Bloomberg has the same in depth research tools (stocks, funds, etc) you’ll find at the WSJ and elsewhere. It’s a bit pricy at $329 yearly. Wonder how many here read it?
I read Bloomberg, the WSJ and Barron’s. Also subscribe to a daily financial blog and a monthly financial newsletter. I read The Observer every month. Taken together these sources more than meet my investment appetite & needs. However, our financial situation, education level, amount of wealth managed and available time all influence where we look for financial information.
I think Bloomberg’s paid subscription website does deserve a place somewhere in the hierarchy of financial news sources for average investors. Please do not conflate it with the on-air circus. If folks here have favorite sources to recommend perhaps they will provide links.
Regarding NVDIA. The data @rforno (and I earlier) posted was designed to catch eyeballs. Not the only way to view it of course. @BaluBalu is spot-on that the percentage moves were greater when the stock had a much lower market cap.
Bloomberg terminal is indispensable for professionals. So, not everything Bloomberg offers is Gloomberg. I had a subscription for its online Bloomberg.com and I still was reading only the headlines.
Everyone is different. My portfolio does better with more silence and less others’ interpretation of data. For example, retirement, when I spend more time on my portfolio, has not necessarily made any incremental positive contribution to my portfolio performance - may be it is negative.
All info I know is useless if I can not figure out how and when others will react to the same info. That is the biggest challenge I have in investing.
Comments
I generally do not read their articles or watch them except occasionally Bloomberg Technology and ETF IQ and regularly Real Yield. Even then I have to apply filters. I know we have Bloomberg fans in the forum.
Nvidia employees and insiders sell their stock in droves for a reason. No other large tech company in Silicon Valley sees NVDA level of lumpy insider stock sales because NVDA goes from one flame out (or use case) to the next.
When not in a recession or SPX not in a bear market, the largest single day decline for NVDA stock was 35% which in August 2004. There were two other worse declines in similar circumstances than the decline on Monday (16.4%), which happens to be the 9th worst in its history.
Now you can see the value of Gloomberg reporting in the OP. I am not singling out Gloomberg.
NVDA also had 5 of the top 10 market cap gains in one day.
Skip to the 4:37 mark for NVDA info/chart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0DR2TnvIIk
'Gloomberg ...' *chuckle* Still more useful than the Clownish Network for Business Chatter!
All media push too much gloom - I think it is a part of their current business model. I do not think it was like that when I was growing up. Now, I only check for headlines and that too sometimes I have to cross check with another source.
I think Jonathan Farro at Gloomberg and John Forte at the Comcast Channel are a cut above. I think Kelly Evans at Comcast will gain prominence.
I do not get to watch her often.
Re: the ongoing discussion (as much about sources as NVDA), I’d agree cable “financial” television is pretty worthless, often inaccurate, slanted or misleading. Most days a parade of clowns talking their book sums it up nicely. Subscribers to Bloomberg’s online resources and print stories, however, fare much better. There are troves of data on virtually every global market and continuous updates 24/7. Bloomberg has the same in depth research tools (stocks, funds, etc) you’ll find at the WSJ and elsewhere. It’s a bit pricy at $329 yearly. Wonder how many here read it?
I read Bloomberg, the WSJ and Barron’s. Also subscribe to a daily financial blog and a monthly financial newsletter. I read The Observer every month. Taken together these sources more than meet my investment appetite & needs. However, our financial situation, education level, amount of wealth managed and available time all influence where we look for financial information.
I think Bloomberg’s paid subscription website does deserve a place somewhere in the hierarchy of financial news sources for average investors. Please do not conflate it with the on-air circus. If folks here have favorite sources to recommend perhaps they will provide links.
Regarding NVDIA. The data @rforno (and I earlier) posted was designed to catch eyeballs. Not the only way to view it of course. @BaluBalu is spot-on that the percentage moves were greater when the stock had a much lower market cap.
Everyone is different. My portfolio does better with more silence and less others’ interpretation of data. For example, retirement, when I spend more time on my portfolio, has not necessarily made any incremental positive contribution to my portfolio performance - may be it is negative.
All info I know is useless if I can not figure out how and when others will react to the same info. That is the biggest challenge I have in investing.