Should I talk about my stocks?
I like your question and think it is a pretty good one.  Generally speaking I would not suggest talking about your stock picks or wealth.  Here is why: 1)  Most people are broke.  Seventy-eight percent of the US population report living paycheck to paycheck.  More than a majority do not have enough in savings to cover a $500 repair to a car or dryer.   What kind of money advice will you get from broke people (the general population)?  Answer:  Bad. 2)  It targets you for jealousy/negative feelings.  If you discuss this kind of thing with your broke friends they will have negative feelings toward you.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  If you want to build wealth a aspect of that is having wealthy friends.  They will have the kind of disposable income to do the kinds of things you want to do.  They can alert you to good investment opportunities.  And your income will tend to increase.  Most people's income resides within 10% of their 10 closest friends.   3)  You can be targeted for law suits.  Given that personal injury attorneys work on contingent, they are very good at picking on defendants with deep pockets or really good insurance.  Knowing that you have significant investments will put a bit of a target on your back.  Having said all of that, you could participate in groups with a similar interest in investing.  Back in the late 80's investment clubs were all the rage, and you might be able to find one of those online or at the local library or something.  That would be a far safer. No, there is no significant harm to discussing this. Outside of possibly getting bad advice, excessive advice, or complaints that others just aren't interested...
If you own the stock today, it doesn't matter what it traded for yesterday.  If XYZ is trading for $40 and you own it, ask yourself if it's worth buying today for $40.  If it isn't, you may want to consider selling it and buying something that is worth $40. I can understand if people think I'm showing off. I'm not trying to and I'm extremely sorry if it seems like I am. Trust me, my Beta is probably much larger than it should be relative to my returns. However, I think I can keep the pace up but I just didn't know if this was too short of time to try and make a decision off of or not "Once upon a time I ran my own micro hedge fund for a very short time.  I can't recall the term commonly used in the industry for such info, but a few individuals, including the prime brokerage firm's founder, offered information of questionable character.  I refused to trade on any of it, not only because of the borderline illegality, but also because I didn't trust any of it... seemed to be more rumor mill type nonsense than anything else.  Moreover, if they already have that info, then it's already up/down... so it then goes the reverse direction as they take profits.  As is commonly said even in normal investor circles: ""buy the rumor, sell the news.""" Since you seem determined to consider this, I'd like to break down for you why I believe it is an incredibly risky proposition: 1) In general, picking individual stocks is risky. Individual stocks are by their nature not diversified assets, and a single company-wide calamity (a la Volkswagen emissions, etc.) can create huge distress to your investments. The way to mitigate this risk is of course to diversify (invest in other types of assets, such as other stocks, index funds, bonds, etc.). However, you must accept that this first step does have risks.  2) Picking stocks on the basis of financial information (called 'fundamental analysis') requires a very large amount of research and time dedication. It is one of the two main schools of thought in equity investing (as opposed to 'technical analysis', which pulls information directly from stock markets, such as price volatility). This is something that professional investors do for a living - and that means that they have an edge you do not have, unless you dedicate similar resources to this task. That information imbalance between you and professional traders creates additional risk where you make determinations 'against the grain'.  3) Any specific piece of public information (and this is public information, regardless of how esoteric it is) may be considered to be already 'factored into' public stock prices. I am a believer in market efficiency first and foremost. That means I believe that anything publically known related to a corporation ['OPEC just lowered their oil production! Exxon will be able to increase their prices!'] has already been considered by the professional traders currently buying and selling in the market. For your 'new' information to be valuable, it would need to have the ability to forecast earnings in a way not already considered by others. 4) I doubt you will be able to find the true nature of the commercial impact of a particular event, simply by knowing ship locations. So what if you know Alcoa is shipping Aluminium to Cuba - is this one of 5 shipments already known to the public? Is this replacement supplies that are covering a loss due to damaged goods previously sent? Is the boat only 1/3 full? Where this information gets valuable, is when it gets to the level of corporate espionage. Yes, if you had ship manifests showing tons of aluminum being sold, and if this was a massive 'secret' shipment about to be announced at the next shareholders' meeting, you could (illegally) profit from that information. 5) The more massive the company, the less important any single transaction is. That means the super freighters you may see transporting raw commodities could have dozens of such ships out at any given time, not to mention news of new mine openings and closures, price changes, volume reports, etc. etc. So the most valuable information would be smaller companies, where a single shipment might cover a month of revenue - but such a small company is (a) less likely to be public [meaning you couldn't buy shares in the company and profit off of the information]; and (b) less likely to be found by you in the giant sea of ship information. In summary, while you may have found some information that provides insight into a company's operations, you have not shown that this information is significant and also unknown to the market. Not to mention the risks associated with picking individual stocks in the first place. In this case, it is my opinion that you are taking on additional risk not adequately compensated by additional reward. I wonder if there are times (like when BofA bought Merrill) when it might be alright to not disclose everything right away.  Particularly if what needs to be disclosed are losses and the government has told you that they'd cover them. I understand now. Thank you. How important is the existence of effective price discovery tools in a market?   And the example that you gave of a farmer is good, but when I as the owner of a company, get futures regarding, say, the stocks that I own of my company, won't that be insider trading if I do that after knowing that the value of my stocks will fall? If people assume price discovery in this case, won't they also have to assume that I am doing insider trading? "How on earth can you possibly know what is going on in individual company X?  The sole exception is if it is your own company. The stock markets of the world are in fact a nest of sharks.  The big sharks essentially make money out of the little sharks.  Some little sharks manage not to be eaten, and grow bigger.  Good luck with that. ""Insider trading"" is, when found out, a crime these days.  But ""insider knowledge"", ""insider hints"", ""knowledge of market sentiment"" and indeed just rumours about a given company are the kinds of things you won't particularly get to hear of in the fog of disinformation, and don't particularly want to waste your time with for a very uncertain loss or gain at the end of the year. The thing I find annoying about mutual funds is that they can be very stupid, and I speculate that it may be the consequence of the marketing on the one hand, and the commission structure on the other.  I started cashing in my funds in late 2007, following the collapse of Northern Rock here in the UK.  The ""2008"" crisis was in fact the slowest economic car crash in history. But very very few mutual funds saw, or seemed to see, the way the wind was blowing, and switch massively to cash. If the punters had the courage to hang on, of course, mostly stocks bounced back in 2009 and 2010.  Moral: remember you can cash your stuff in any time you want." You should sell all your stock immediately and reinvest the money in index funds. As of right now you're competing against prop trading shops, multinational banks, and the like, who probably know a teensy bit more about that particular stock than you do. I'm sorry, any other advice is missing the point that you shouldn't be picking stocks in the first place. If you are in a position to have information that will impact the shares of a stock or index fund and you use that information for either personal gain or to mitigate the losses that you would have felt then it is insider trading.  Even if in the end your quiet period passes with little or no movement of the stocks in question.  It is the attempt to benefit from or the appearance of the attempt to benefit from inside information that creates the crime.  This is the reason for the quiet periods to attempt to shield the majority of the companies employees from the appearance of impropriety, as well as any actual improprieties. With an index you are running a double edged sword because anything that is likely to cause APPLE to drop 10% is likely to give a bump to Motorola, Google, and its competitors.  So you could end up in jail for Insider trading and lose your shirt on a poor decision to short a Tech  ETF on knowledge that will cause Apple to take a hit.  It is certainly going to be harder to find the trade but the SEC is good at looking around for activity that is inconsistent with normal trading patterns of individuals in a position to have knowledge with the type of market impact you are talking about. I'd listen to the person who doesn't want tax deferral.  S/he is wise. I'd do it in a taxable account.  Talk about the investments all you want, pool your knowledge, but invest privately and separately. Pay your taxes and be done with them. It may be helpful to have a few pitches prepared just in case.This is helpful because you may be articulating your groups investment thesis or even originating ideas at some point.  * Company-Industry  * Elevator pitch... * Why it's the best in the Peer group. * Why this pitch is novel. * Why the financials make sense. * Entry/Exit. * +s/-s. &gt; According to pretty well accepted corporate finance principles.  What are the names of those principles and where can I read more about them and how they apply to huge tech companies?  I'd like more than your word on something as huge as you are claiming. That all my stocks are holding way too much cash and are run by finance morons. You talk about an individual not being advised to sell (or purchase) in response to trends in the market in such a buy and hold strategy. But think of this for a moment: You buy stock ABC for $10 when both the market as a whole and stock ABC are near the bottom of a bear market as say part of a value buying strategy. You've now held stock ABC for a number of years and it is performing well hitting $50. There is all good news about stock ABC, profit increases year after year in double digits. Would you consider selling this stock just because it has increased 400%. It could start falling in a general market crash or it could keep going up to $100 or more. Maybe a better strategy to sell ABC would be to place a trailing stop of say 20% on the highest price reached by the stock. So if ABC falls, say in a general market correction, by less than 20% off its high and then rebounds and goes higher - you keep it. If ABC however falls by more than 20% off its high you automatically sell it with your stop loss order. You may give 20% back to the market if the market or the stock crashes, but if the stock continues going up you benefit from more upside in the price. Take AAPL as an example, if you bought AAPL in March 2009, after the GFC, for about $100, would you have sold it in December 2011 when it hit $400. If you did you would have left money on the table. If instead you placed a trailing stop loss on AAPL of 20% you would have been still in it when it hit its high of $702 in September 2012. You would have finally been stopped out in November 2012 for around the $560 mark, and made an extra $160 per share. And if your thinking, how about if I decided to sell AAPL at $700, well I don't think many would have picked $700 as the high in hindsight. The main benefit of using stop losses is that it takes your emotions out of your trading, especially your exits. The standard answer on any long term stock is hold on during the rough times.  You have not lost anything until you sell.  If your concern is just that you are not certain where the stock price is headed, unless you need the money now and can not afford to hold on to the stock then I would hold it. "Yes, but it's also this. ""Investors in stocks these days are expecting far too much, and I'm going to explain why. That will inevitably set me to talking about the general stock market, a subject I'm usually unwilling to discuss. But I want to make one thing clear going in: Though I will be talking about the level of the market, I will not be predicting its next moves"". He can, and does, make two unrelated points"