Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Tulipomania Blowoff Contest: Why and When will it end? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nihil who wrote (2228)	12/25/1999 12:21:00 PM
From: KeepItSimple	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3543

>The problem in 1930 was that the investors didn't buy and hold. If you > had invested $1 million at the peak in 1929, today it would be worth > $17 million. Once again another mindless "buy and hold" post. You neglect to mention the 30% of stocks that were eventually delisted after the crash of 1929- what if your "investment" happened to include some of them? "Buy and hold" until hell freezes over won't bring any of your money back on those issues. And then you state that 1 million in 1929 would be worth 17 million today- but you neglect to mention that the market was STILL trading lower in 1945 than in 1929. I guess if you can wait more than 15 years to get your money back, thats ok.. However when you're 60 or 70 years old, you might have a problem waiting that long. The problem is that in the last 10 years, bear markets have lasted about 5 minutes. People forget that REAL bear markets can last a decade or more. Lets see how religiously people "buy and hold" when stocks go flatline for even 5 years.

To: nihil who wrote (2228)	12/25/1999 9:02:00 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3543

>>Bull markets don't come around so often that one can afford to sit them out. << Your thinking is terribly inconsistent. -- 1) Bull markets don't come around that often and in another post -- 2) bull/bear markets don't matter -- stockpicking does -- which is it? You will simply buy more of those darlings when a real bear market ensues ...

To: nihil who wrote (2228)	12/26/1999 8:21:00 PM
From: Sr K	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3543

Aside from the response by KeepItSimple about stocks not surviving, you misquoted John Templeton, excerpted from Wall $treet Week with LR from 12/24/1999, which was a replay from January 1997, I believe. The math is that the Dow at the peak was 381, and when that show was broadcast in 1997 it was about 6700. It is that ratio of 6700/381 that made the 1997 result $17 million. Sir John was referring to the Dow Jones stocks, I believe (but I've already recorded over the program), not the overall market. So one would have had to "adjust" his portfolio every time Dow Jones & Company removed and added a name (i.e. tax consequences), such as when GF was taken over and the other more obvious ones. Similarly, the figure Sir John used for the reinvested portfolio, would have to be brought forward nearly 3 years, and would be at least $420 m.