Maybe I'm dense. Probably so. Your closing asked the question on whether the concept of blue chips was dead, and opened that to discussion. That's what I've been speaking to. Blue chips have not been immune to haircuts in the past - look at T in 90 and 96, IBM in 92, etc. But if 'Ma' had held those instead of Sears, she would never have never known, because she won't sell anything for another couple of years. For a long enough hold, there IS safety from volatility. Volatility is implicitly short term.
We agree completely on CSCO. I was using it as an example of a non-blue-chip that would be entirely inappropriate for 'Ma'. Even 40% growth at 13.5 years to get back to a todays price, or whatever whativer was arguing, doesn't make it any more realistic.
I agree with you that markets are changing, and manipulation is becoming more brazen. I think early 2000 saw this intensify, with the Y2K money supply yo-yo as the catalyst. Do I think this kills the concept of 'blue chip'? No. Good long term earnings prospects, with dividends to provide cash without selling, will continue to be blue chip investments. Volatility is moot.
The dow's going to 110,000 by 2025, right? <G>
GB |
