>Get your facts straight before you set yourself up as the Master >Investor.
I am not the Master Investor. I wish I were, however.
>This represents a 14.27% INCREASE in Intel vs. a 23.48% >INCREASE in the DOW Jones Industrial Average since the >beginning of 1997.
>This is NOT A FLAT PERFORMANCE, Konrad.
If I remember correctly, your calculation greatly benefits from the fact that INTC was in a strong downdraft around Dec31. You are using the $130.9 closing price for INTC as your starting point; however, if memory serves correctly, this was an abnormally low price for that period. How about an average price for December 1996 compared with an average price for June 1997, for INTC and for Dow? I'm not sending you off to do the calculations (unless you really want to), but I believe the results would be dramatically different.
>However, anybody who worries incessantly about short term >performance, and not long term performance, as you are doing, will >likely fare poorly over the long run
No argument here from me. You can't spot the good times or the bad times, and it's best to just hold on. But if you read this thread at the beginning of the year, 200 was assumed to be just over the horizon. And I'm not blaming others, as I'm sure I made many posts in which I was sure we'd be at least around 200 by now. Intel is a stock like any other, and will go down and go up. It has performed very well for the past 20 years. This is no guarantee of it performing well in any given future time period. It is not a magic money-making machine. This is all I am saying. |
