One question you can ask yourself before you invest in a company: why do I think the value will increase and provide a good return on my investment?

One reason is because the company is poised to grow at a rate above the overall market. These are called growth stocks.

Another reason is because the company is valued lower than it should be right now based upon a fundamental analysis of its fair market value. These are called value stocks.

Growth

With a growth stock, the current price may already be high due to strong demand, because people think the stock will be worth much more in the future. That is the risk you are taking, because if the stock does not outperform the overall market, you are now behind.

Having a good knowledge of the market in which a growth stock company operates is very helpful. There may be market disruptions (AI anyone?) that lead to outsized expected growth. Look at Nvidia’s 5 year chart. Tell me when everybody figured out Nvidia’s chips were amazing for AI processing.

Or Amazon during the pandemic. Look at this chart and tell me when everybody figured out that if you can’t go to the store to buy things, you are going to need to order it online.

These companies were sitting in a market that, for whatever reason, had amazing growth potential. The companies were able to use their core strengths to jump ahead of the overall economy in terms of value creation speed.

Value

As mentioned, value stocks are those that, after lots of research into the company and market itself, you think the price of the stock should be higher than it is right now. And you expect that stock price to rise as everybody else realizes all the amazing things you already realized.

The stock could have been beaten down by some newsworthy event, which caused everybody to panic sell. These stocks are trading nowhere near their high marks. However, if you think the stock will get back up to that high water mark, you may have found a good value stock.

Now, determining which stocks that have suddenly dropped in value are actually value stocks takes research. You don’t want to “catch a falling knife” by the blade and end up bloody. You want to be able to catch the handle! Does the company have enough cash to weather any storm? Are creditors piling up? Is the photograph printing market shrinking incredibly fast and the company is not making the right decisions? Back to that fundamental analysis of the company itself - if you look at the financials and are impressed with the leadership's team ability to navigate that quick drop in stock value, then you found a winner!

Warren Buffet seems to think United Health is a value stock. As you can see, the stock is about half of its initial value. Buffet is in this for the long term and is hoping that his research is correct in terms of UnitedHealth potentially doubling back up to its previous value faster than the market as a whole would double. Either that, or he hopes his clout is enough to make it a value stock in that more people will invest just because he did.

Holy cow done

That about wraps up the difference between these two types of stocks. Many stocks are a blend of the two, also. But seeing the extremes helps with understanding this way to differentiate stocks. Yes, there are more specifics that I didn't fully get into. And yes I am trying to be as approachable as possible with the topic. Hopefully this helped you!

Can you find an example of a potential value stock out in the world currently? How about a potential growth stock?

Any interest in forming an investment club?

We would meet regularly (TBD), learn techniques from each other, pass on knowledge and experience, and present our individual analysis.

The chair would keep people on track in between meetings, encouraging the hard work of spending your own time researching duds in the hopes that one of us finds a potential gem for us all to enjoy.

Theoretically, we would want to research company stocks that are easy for all to buy, so I would be interested in a group based upon major US indices. However, this thread could potentially be used by others to form their own group buying from other markets.

Edit: alright, I'm sending direct messages to those who expressed interest in wanting to contribute. Those who expressed interest in learning will potentially be able to learn with however the group decides to communicate to Tildes.

If you are interested in participating, you can leave a comment here or send me a message for now. Thanks!

Just curious since the recent DeepSeek panic.

What do you like? Companies/ETFs?

What do you do? Buy and hold/Trade/Options (Calls/puts, LEAPs, spreads)?

What areas do you think will see massive change (gain/loss)?

Pretty sure this is my first or second topic post, so apologies if the opener is too short.

Random thought. What if we taxed property based on the area per person of the property, as opposed to sale value?

Edit and quick intro to those who mostly rent: most real property in the US, especially residential property, is taxed yearly based on some variation of something called "fair market value," usually assessed by a local tax assessor's office

I'm proposing that a property would be taxed for every square meter of space per person in the designated property unit. It can't be totally simplified, but should be fairly straightforward. There could also be progressive brackets. It might not make make sense to apply it strictly per person, but rather for a typical use. That is, we would assume "single family residential" properties to house 3.4 (totally made up number) people per house and property.

The goal of this is to find a fair, market-driven incentive to build density into urban cores.

A similar approach could be applied to commercial space (but probably not industrial).

It could be coupled with a sales tax (currently missing in most real property tax regimes, at least in the US) to capture runaway property valuations in certain jurisdictions.

Alternatively, we could drop the property value based tax rate (but not eliminate it), and then add a per person-area surcharge.

It's not meant to increase revenue, although it could certainly be used that way. It could also be use to decrease revenue, and maybe that would be a good way to sell it. But at the end of the day, developers and residents would both have an incentive to pursue as dense development as possible, even if there is not a density driving pressure of desirablity, which only exists in a few really cool urban cores.