The company doesn't really fit your profile name either. Doesn't quite seem to fit your strategy...
I find it extremely difficult to read a company like that well, which is why I generally steer clear of it...
I find it extremely difficult to read a company like that well, which is why I generally steer clear of it...
••
Thank you for your contribution @KevinE! I was aiming for a different strategy when I bought the stock. The profile name is not meant to imply that I only invest in dividend stocks.
•
11
•@DividendenEinhorn In any case, I've already dipped into the muck more often with non-dividend-paying companies than with dividend payers.
That's why I only have a few that don't generate cash flow for me. But it was also a case of "learning through pain" for me that I am much better at interpreting the quarterly figures of established companies (which generally pay dividends).
With fast-growers, there are two options: I lack the imagination that they will continue to grow so strongly (these are usually the companies that make it) or I believe in the growth story and a year later there are umpteen reasons why it was clear why this could not continue.
This rarely happens to me now; however, I once calculated that I would have been better off just leaving the money in my call money account. Then my performance would have been just under 1% p.a. better.
That's why I only have a few that don't generate cash flow for me. But it was also a case of "learning through pain" for me that I am much better at interpreting the quarterly figures of established companies (which generally pay dividends).
With fast-growers, there are two options: I lack the imagination that they will continue to grow so strongly (these are usually the companies that make it) or I believe in the growth story and a year later there are umpteen reasons why it was clear why this could not continue.
This rarely happens to me now; however, I once calculated that I would have been better off just leaving the money in my call money account. Then my performance would have been just under 1% p.a. better.
•
22
•