laitimes

Just finished watching the movie home, saw a fan's message, asked me why Arowana so many institutional positions and Lin Yuan also bought so much, the stock price has been falling and not rising? Not that there is funding

author:Finance

Just finished watching the movie home, saw a fan's message, asked me why Arowana so many institutional positions and Lin Yuan also bought so much, the stock price has been falling and not rising? Doesn't it mean that if there is an inflow of money, it will rise?

This question is a very good question, and it is also very representative, in fact, there are many stocks like this, and there are many people who believe that the inflow of funds will rise in stock prices. The first thing to understand is the basic principle, that is, what is the meaning of capital inflow. In most people's minds, the inflow of money is the money coming in, but this thing is really just a technical indicator invented by stock software, and it is not as decisive as you think. The trading of the stock market is one-to-one correspondence, there must be a sale when there is a buy, so how much capital inflow (buying) must correspond to how much money flows out (sold), this detail you want to understand no?

The inflow and outflow on the stock software actually refers to the larger buy and sell orders, and if you look closely, different stock software may show different inflows or outflows. It is possible that the same stock has some software display inflow and some display outflow, why is this? This is because different stock software will set different standards when counting buying and selling orders, there may be software to divide more than 10,000 shares into large households, some software is based on 50,000 shares as the standard, statistical caliber of different results are not the same, which causes data differences. This is not surprising, this is caused by the basic principles of software compilation, professionally called algorithm differences.

Since the inflow and outflow is unreliable, is it reliable for some large households, celebrities, and institutions to buy? The list of shareholders is given to listed companies by the exchange, which is certainly reliable, but just a celebrity taking money to buy does not necessarily make the stock rise. A person who has ever looked at a certain stock does not mean that he will always look at it accurately, can you figure this out?

When Moutai was first bought by them, it was not by themselves, but after they bought it, many other institutions recognized it. I didn't say the word investment value because a spirits company being the number one in market capitalization is itself a disgrace to the national securities market, and they don't deserve it. The level of corporate value depends on how much wealth can be created for shareholders, and it is simply unrealistic to want to grow at a high speed forever, and even the best enterprises will have a ceiling for growth. So when the growth can not continue, Davis double-click into a double kill, no one can resist, whether there is a capital inflow, no amount of money can do, the mantis arm just blocks the car.

As for Arowana, it is very good to maintain the status quo, after all, such a large enterprise. Wine can be stored without drinking, because everyone believes that the older it is, the more fragrant it is. (Of course, one day if you find that there is no Maotai everywhere, it will not be good) Oil is not the same, the shelf life is 18 months, relying on hoarding is not OK

Read on