QPM Chart, page-5467

I like that party analogy, though my strategy (or at least the way I'd use the analogy) is slightly different.

There are countless parties (companies) I can go to (buy) and my goal is to have as much fun as possible without having to clean up (see the share price fall while I'm still holding). I'll do some research to get an idea of which party is going to be the most fun, then wait until after they all start to see which one is the most fun, then I'll go to that one. Sure, I'll miss the start of the party, but I have a much higher chance of going to a better party and having more fun, and avoid being at a boring party where I have a bad night.

Now, when it comes to leaving, the analogy breaks down because I wouldn't treat real people this way, but the stock market/company is not my friend, it doesn't care about me, and actually, the other shareholders are actively trying to take my money away from me, so I don't actually care about them - I want their money too! So, I am not going to worry about leaving before the cleanup starts, I'm going to leave as soon as I see the party is over and the cleanup has started. This may mean that I have to deal with a small amount of the cleanup, but it also means I got to stick around for the entire fun part, as opposed to leaving early and likely missing the all night blast I could have had.

And of course, the analogy breaks down a bit because party timings are more predictable because they rarely go much beyond sunrise, but you get the idea.

Most people try to pick the very bottom which is a great way to jump in for further losses. They try to sell out at the top which is a great way to miss out on further gains. This fits in with human psychology, but it is a destructive way to trade, assuming your goal is to make money.

...and as our dear friend Glish and the two who saw fit to donate lightbulbs clearly demonstrate, it is common for people to only want to see absolute unbridled ramping, and any balanced discussion or analysis is disliked. Acknowledging the reality of any possible downside is to be punished. When things on this very company turned absolutely obviously bearish (over two years ago due to the massive capex requirement blowout on the nickel project) I immediately sold and posted about why. It was plain as day what was going to happen to the share price and indeed over the next few months it lost the majority of its value, but even suggesting this was a possibility or saying I'd sold brought massive hatred, abuse and ridicule. People really don't like negativity, even when it is entirely valid. They don't even like objectivity. This is actually a beautiful thing in terms of trading and investing, because these are the people you are competing against - for example, if everyone was entirely objective, I wouldn't have been able to sell out of QPM in the teens, and some of those same people were the ones who eventually gave up on their optimism and sold out at the lows, causing the price to overshoot to the low side, allowing me to buy back in at great value over two years later.

Of course, if you want to be popular on Hot Copper, all you need to do is should about how it's going to the moon, make up some ridiculously high price targets (no genuine basis or analysis needed, but extra lightbulbs if you pretend you did some analysis, just post some charts with random lines on it and if it's bullish the crowd will love it) and abusively attack anyone who isn't bullish - it's a surefire recipe for being the most popular person on any company discussion. Being objective... that's generally popular when the situation genuinely is bullish (though as Glish demonstrates, not always!) but otherwise most will hate you, *especially* when your predictions turn out to be correct.

Fan service is not my area of expertise or one I desire to delve into.