RE:RE:RE:Best BBObscure1 wrote: At its very peak usefulness, Motley Fool regurgitates material that is old news.
The rest of the time, Motley Fool is a joke written by people that clearly have no clue.
Picking a historical high point as a reference point to support an arguement is laughable and makes the author truly look like a Fool.
I don't really care about what the share price was in 2008. In fact, my sub $23 cost price on my core postition is irrelevant other than for tax calculations.
Many of us read whatever pops up online about our holdings. When you do read something, ask yourself some questions such as:
What is the author's agenda?
How credible is the author?
What is the author's track record on the investment in question?
If your spidey senses tell you something doesn't make sense, then it probably doesn't. If you are unsure, try asking this board as there are some pretty talented posters here and everyone seems to be willing to share their insights.
Nobody gets it right every time. Nobody can pick the top or the bottom other than by pure luck. Anyone that claims they can might want to look for a job at Motley Fool.
Great advice.
I would add a couple of other questions -
1.....so what? Does this make any difference?
2...is this new and something that the market doesn't know or has gotten wrong?
Most of the time, the answer to these questions is "NO".
Frankly, in the case of companies like SU, as you have pointed in the past, the math is pretty simple. From their Q reports you know their baseline oil production, their cost of production, the contribution of the upstream and with a scenario for the future oil price you can pretty much calculate FCF on the back of an envelop