Suggestion Box

Lately a lot of posters whose screen names I don’t recognize have showed up to tell us how they think the board should be different. Why should we listen to you? You’re abusing the fact that anyone is free to post here. I wish it were not so. I want to hear from Saul, Stocknovice, ExponentialDave, JonWayne, and others who have earned their stripes here through their on-topic posts. I want to hear from newer posters like Catsunited who has had many on-topic posts, even if I don’t agree with all of them.

We delete many off topic posts, but we can’t delete them all lately, because they’re overrunning the board. So I propose a new idea: when someone whose screen name we don’t recognize shows up with a non-contributing post, Let’s all ignore it. Off topic posts aren’t what we want anyway, but if they come from the peanut gallery, they shouldn’t even be addressed.

To the lurkers out there who don’t post, thank you for not cluttering the board. And to everyone, if you want us to care about your thoughts, contribute to the discussion. All are welcome to discuss growth companies. But you have to put in the effort if you want to deserve everyone’s attention.

Assistant Board Manager


I think the board is really good at what it set out to do - discussing high growth stocks. Most people understand this and follow the rules, either by posting on topic discussions or just sitting back and reading silently.

And it’s designed and maintained as best as it can be. I think the only suggestion I have is that people should only get one warning, and if there are any offenses after that they should be banned. Saul and the board mods are nice people who don’t want to ban anyone, and maybe I am just “tough on crime” lol. But repeat offenders receive no sympathy from me.

I’m strongly of the belief that if you want to discuss other things, you should either make your own board or go to twitter.

Regarding the things that a lot of people want the board to discuss like valuation and the macroeconomic situation - despite seeing thousands of opinions on the internet, I honestly don’t think anyone has a good grasp on how to value a hyper growth stock, or how to effectively use macro knowledge into a winning portfolio strategy.

With regards to these topics, lots of people are good at saying things that sound smart but are ultimately vague and useless. StockNovice said this eloquently here:

"And that’s been the problem with these types of criticisms all along. Your smart-sounding yet vague hypotheticals aren’t actually alternatives no matter how many times you label them as such. They are nothing more than academic garble with no practical application steps. If you have real-time links to your thinking, decisions, and returns the last few years, feel free to provide them."

People who offer these vague hypotheticals rarely if ever have documented results to back up that their method works, or that they even have a method of investing at all. And I’m glad this board is a place where we mostly don’t have to listen to people offering up this nonsense because the board managers and mods do a great job deleting their posts and discouraging people from making those posts in the first place.

I definitely agree with Bear’s assessment that we should not take advice from people who don’t contribute here. They should be ignored until they demonstrate they understand what this board is about and what its key competencies are.


Positives: Most of the posts and discussions are thorough, well thought out and comprehensive.
The supporting commentary is outstanding as well, including negatives.
I don’t think there is any other place where this information is available in such an easy format and or free.

Suggestion: Any discussion of valuation about these high growth companies is frowned upon.
This is my one suggestion to improve on this board. e.g. buying UPST at $400 and at $80 are two different investment choices.
A valuation discussion of these exceptional high growth companies would be helpful.


A valuation discussion of these exceptional high growth companies would be helpful.

A suggestion which ignores the fact that traditional valuation metrics are nonsense applied to companies like these … a point which is made repeatedly when someone tries to present such metrics.


A suggestion which ignores the fact that traditional valuation metrics are nonsense applied to companies like these…

Simple “traditional valuation metrics” such as ratios of various sorts (P/S, P/E, etc.) may be “nonsense,” but it’s hardly nonsense to ask what projected revenues, net margin, share count, and rate of return would be required X years from now (say, 5?) to justify the current price. Then you can at least say, “Yeah, that seems entirely possible” versus “Whoa, that feels like a stretch even for this great company.” You don’t need to be precise. As recent action has shown, even if you allow for +/- 100% error bands, it can still be a useful exercise.

If you don’t do that sort of back-of-the-envelope valuation exercise, you’re in effect saying you’re happy to buy at whatever price you’re offered. If folks here are cool with that, that’s fine. You’re in effect saying that the market sets a fair price. But as we’re seeing now (and has Saul has pointed out, repeatedly), that is nonsense.

PS: I’m not piling on. I’m trying to be constructive. I just bought some SNOW and had owned CRWD (which I sold at a profit). But I decided how much I was willing to pay, just as I do when I buy anything else.