What if, and this might be just a guess, the hundreds of thousands of people at major investment corporations have thought of this as well and driven the price up so that they are now adequately valued?
Do you know more about the future of these tech companies then the legions of math/physics/economics/CS PhDs paid to investigate the potential of these companies?
If the sales and earnings go up in the long run, and the stocks aren’t super overvalued, then the stocks go up. It doesn’t matter what other people think. All that matters is the performance and valuation.
The price of a share is determined by exactly one thing, how much people are willing to buy them vs. willing to sell them.
If the market believes a certain stock will outperform the average it is free money to buy that stock, so prices will rice exactly to the point at which the market believes the share will not outperform the market at that price.
This is literally basic economics. Google "efficient markets".
You can see the price for yourself though vs the fundamentals and judge whether it’s a fair deal. The market isn’t omniscient and has been mispriced very frequently.
When you're doing long-term investments, it's not a zero-sum game. It is possible - likely even - that you and those hordes of PhDs all come out ahead.
>It is possible - likely even - that you and those hordes of PhDs all come out ahead.
No, it isn't. This is total nonsense, if the PhDs believe a stock is undervalued they bid it up until it is even valued.
The only secret strategy an individual has to outperform the market over a long time is insider training. Everything else means you are betting against the market being efficient, which is risky, to say the least.
Do you know more about the future of these tech companies then the legions of math/physics/economics/CS PhDs paid to investigate the potential of these companies?