I was doing some reading on various stocks that had had shaky histories. There were two sides to the coin. On one side, you have the people who hung on through the roller coaster and took the dips and spikes without bailing. On the flip side, you have.. the exact same thing? Am I talking about a two faced coin? No. There's more to the story. On one side of the coin, the company is now worth 5 times what these people originally invested. On the other side, you will find a company that is still treading water, maybe on the way down, or maybe finally getting the lifeline they need. Either way, which of the two types of investors are the wiser? This has been bugging me lately, because if you think about it, who could have predicted Enron? How about WolrdCom? These were solid stocks that went south. It could be argued that there may have been signs, but if there were, they weren't good enough for the millions of people who lost fortunes. Getting back to the wobbly stock argument. Who is the smarter investor? The person who hold on to a stock that ends up going up? Or the person who hangs on to a stock that goes down. Obviously the people who made money are smarter... Or maybe they are both stupid for staying in while there are other stocks doing much better. It could narrow down to luck of the draw, but if you ask me, luck of the draw is a game that belongs in Las Vegas, not New York. The stock market may seem random, but at least you can make an educated investment instead of banking completely on how well somebody shuffles cards. What do you think?