To: manohar kanuri who wrote (3328 ) 1/17/2000 7:55:00 AM From: kai_kai Read Replies (2) | Respond to
Yes, and I guess we should opt for a kind of market cool-down that would differentiate between companies. In the long run companies with a great management team and flawless execution of their business model will no doubt survive and expand. No problem for the YHOOs and AOLs of this small planet. All others will eventually have to prove their money-making abilities. The only risk is that a severe market meltdown (most of us have only experienced the 1998 hickup) will not differentiate between the two groups of companies. I don't know about these things from my own experience but I would gess that a considerable NASDAQ correction would have a real mid-term impact not only on possible valuations but on US economy as well. Until then I'd be happy - as I'm already in the game - if mania builds up and continues a little bit so I'd be able to sell into the next bidding frenzy if there is any above 400 k. I'm cautious since we can't be sure that "corrections" as we've seen them in the past would all necessarily have to proceed the same way (correct, rise, end up higher). This didn't work in Asia in 1992 although it did work in the US in 1998. So the alternatives are, as I see them, as follows: if US markets kind of "behave" we'll no doubt see 800 k due to the various factors Jay would be able to explain better than I am. If for whatever reason we see any real US-crash SFTBF might not be safer than any other tech-stock. Of course the second scenario holds not for the kind of drowsy horizontal movement we've seen for I-Net shares last summer. I don't expect an overall collaps but I do sometimes catch myself ruling out such a thing as impossible 'cause its much more fun expecting the world to proceed like it did in the last 5 years and, yes, wdik....
