ABC
AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORP
stock NYSE

Most of the News organizations NBC, Fox, CBS and ABC say a lot of jobs added during Biden’s term were government jobs with Trump only adding public company jobs. I’m not saying it the news outlets are saying that.

>Did you miss the part where the ONLY difference between A and B was that A was going to pay out a dividend at the end of the day?
But that's not real. Our argument is based on real life.
>Share price is based on the market's prediction of future earnings/future value
Share price is the net present value of future earnings. Not the future value of a company as in book value. Like I said above, that would mean a company that hoards cash and doesn't invest or pay out anything to shareholders would see the most price appreciation. That's not how it works.
>If the market thinks ABC corp will earn 200 per share in present value, they will price the shares at 200
I assume you mean net present value?
>Once the dividends are sent out, the shares are immediately revalued at 200.
And then immediately valued at something else via price discovery. You're acting like stocks are in a vacuum where the only thing they're priced at is book value. Or that once they establish a value that it doesn't change. That's not how reality works.
Netflix would have consecutive red quarters and the stock would climb the whole way. Twitter IPO'd with negative earnings but they still arrived at a valuation. Uber would bleed cash every quarter and the stock would rise.
These events, that we have documented, disprove any theory that stocks are priced in book value or that when the balance sheet takes a hit, it immediately hits a stock in proportion to what happened on the balance sheet.
You can craft a dream scenario and set up a weird situation where *only* X or Y happens and "nothing else in the world will ever happen" but that starts becoming something other than the world we live in.

Thank goodness we have ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC to give us just the facts. They only tell us the total truth all the time. Thank goodness I have such trusted organizations and people to form my opinions for me.

>But that doesn't mean that Share B keeps growing at $20 in share price every time it declines to pay out a dividend and this continues into the future. It doesn't work that way.
It sounds like you are talking about something else. Did you miss the part where the ONLY difference between A and B was that A was going to pay out a dividend at the end of the day? (Maybe B already paid out its dividend last week and won't pay another till next year).
>Share price does not directly correlate with the balance sheet. If it did, then it would be a race for companies to hoard as much cash and spend as little as possible to get that balance sheet correlation.
Share price is based on the market's prediction of future earnings/future value. A company that pays out $20 in dividends immediately loses $20 in available future earnings because they just spent/lost that money.
If the market thinks ABC corp will earn 200 per share in present value, they will price the shares at 200. If the market thinks ABC corp will earn 200 per share in present value, AND will pay out 20 in dividends EOD, they will price the shares at 220. Once the dividends are sent out, the shares are immediately revalued at 200.

But that doesn't mean that Share B keeps growing at $20 in share price every time it declines to pay out a dividend and this continues into the future. It doesn't work that way.
Share price does not directly correlate with the balance sheet. If it did, then it would be a race for companies to hoard as much cash and spend as little as possible to get that balance sheet correlation.
So now let's zoom out to real life. If ABC company said "Our plan for the next 10 years is to stop capital investment, hoard cash, and pay out no dividends" the market is going to react negatively. Whereas if ABC company says "We're going to continue to operate and we're going to pay regular dividends with no intention of interrupting that" the market is going to react more favorably.
Eventually Share A is going to be worth more because of that commitment of earnings transfer. Share B would not because it's just going to represent a company with a growing balance sheet that isn't growing or investing anything new. They'd just be increasing the retained earnings balance every quarter without the common stockholder being able to access it.
They'd be a great leveraged buyout candidate though sitting on all that cash doing nothing. Private equity could come in, buy a controlling position, replace the board, dividend capture the cash, and then lever up the company and get a great return.

Let's say you are looking at 2 shares of ABC company, and share A will pay $20 at the end of the day to whoever owns the share at that time, but share B won't - but the shares are otherwise completely identical.
If both shares cost $400 ea, which one will you buy? Obviously share A - you come out ahead by $20 if you buy it.
What would it take to convince you to buy share B instead? It doesn't make sense to buy share B unless it is at least $20 cheaper than share A. In other words, share A is worth $20 more than share B.
At the end of the day, once the dividend has been paid out, share A will finally be fully identical in value to share B - having instantly 'lost' $20 in value. (That $20 in value was transferred as cash into the pocket of the shareholder).

Hey everyone,
I’ve been tracking BTC closely, and right now I’m staring at what looks like one of the cleanest, most beautiful technical setups we’ve seen in a while.
Fasten your seatbelts bc this could be the launchpad we’ve been waiting for.
Over the last 2 years or so, Bitcoin completed a solid 5-wave impulse (1-2-3-4-5 Elliott Wave) to the upside, peaking around those all-time highs we all remember. Then came the inevitable pullback: what I see as a classic ABC corrective wave playing out over the past 6 months to a year. Wave A down, B up (the fakeout rally), and C down into this recent dump, textbook zigzag correction.
Now? We’re sitting right in the **double bottom** zone between 67,000 and 70,000. This isn’t just random support, it’s a clear W-shaped reversal pattern with two solid tests of the lows (one earlier in the dip, and the recent retest holding strong).
Volume has dried up on the downside pushes, and we’re seeing higher lows forming, which screams exhaustion from sellers.
This double bottom aligns perfectly with the end of that ABC correction, putting us at a major inflection point. Just like the last time BTC hit this resistance-turned-support area (think back to prior cycles or even the mid-dip bounces), it rejected lower prices hard and exploded upward once it confirmed the hold.
I truly believe this is primed for a strong bullish move higher starting next week. The structure looks impulsive to the upside from here with potential Wave 1 of a new leg up, or at minimum a relief rally that could reclaim 75k+ quickly if momentum kicks in.
Of course, crypto is volatile so always DYOR, manage risk, and don’t bet the farm! But technically? This setup is gorgeous. Double bottom + Elliott completion + historical precedent at this range = bullish vibes.
What do you think—bottom in, or more pain first? Drop your charts/thoughts below!

Next weekly high will determine probabilities. This could either be an ABC correction to end a wave 4 down or a 1 leg of a 5 wave bear market. It’s still unclear probabilities but if it bonks mid 80’s onlower volume lower rsi on the weekly, that a high probability exit on a dead cat

>Yea I never understood this take at all. LLMs are still pretty accurate
The accurate rate will depend on your prompt (keywords, terms, and concepts).
It’s like searching on Google before LLMs appeared, but with an aggregate filter.
But the quality of the knowledge comes from you. LLMs are like a giant library: if you pick *The ABC of Trading* instead of *The Intelligent Investor* by Benjamin Graham, well, the quality of what you learn will be very different. You know what I mean?
In the end, it’s you (the human) who has to develop filters to separate nonsense, stupid, and wrong content from real, high-quality, academic content.
And for an investor, the quality of the information they consume is basically 50% of the success they will have as an investor.
:D

ABC Refinery The Southern Cross 10oz bar

The first thing to do is educate yourself. People will tell you "invest in ABC" or "invest in XYZ". If you do that you'll end up like a lot of people on reddit: owning a bunch of stuff that they don't understand, and often that is overlapping or even identical. Just a mishmash of stuff.
Start learning here:
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/11/3-s-simple-investing.asp
https://www.schwab.com/investing-principles
https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/personal-finance/how-to-start-investing
https://www.marketbeat.com/videos/index-investing-for-beginners/
https://investor.vanguard.com/investor-resources-education/article/how-to-start-investing
We can't post links to YouTube here, but go to the Charles Schwab YouTube channel and watch the playlist "Investing Basics" then watch the playlist "Investing & Portfolio Management". If a video is in both playlists you don't have to watch it twice.
While you are educating yourself your first task is to build up an emergency fund that could cover at least 3 months of living expenses. Sometimes the reason people are in debt is because they don't have enough savings to cover an unexpected expense, so they charge it on a credit card. You don't want to do that, or draw on your investments. Put the emergency fund in a high yield savings account (HYSA) or in a money market fund at a brokerage.
Stick with a large, established brokerage like Fidelity Investments or Charles Scwab. You can open an account with Fidelity Investments or Charles Schwab for $0. Open an account with both Fidelity and Schwab for $0, download and try out their apps, check out their websites, talk to their customer service, perhaps make an appointment to visit their nearby branch offices, then pick the one you like best.
https://www.schwab.com/open-an-account
https://www.fidelity.com/open-account/overview
https://www.schwab.com/branches
https://www.fidelity.com/branches/overview
PS: I would stay away from Robinhood. Their app was specifically designed to make users addicted to interacting with the app. That isn't the best thing for serious investing. Stick with Fidelity or Schwab.