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.

Pastimes : All Clowns Must Be Destroyed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: yard_man who wrote (12241)	2/23/2000 7:32:00 PM
From: David Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42523

Your definition of market "health" does not matter to me, since I know it's always been a market of stocks and not a stock market, and thus I consider the grand debate about breadth and narrowness to be irrelevant. The professional money managers who've been successful over long spans of time realize this. It's why last year was stunningly successful for a large number of mutual funds and hedge funds, with many conventional public mutual funds outperforming their benchmarks by 50%, 100%, or more. And those who have vainly used the "breadth" argument as justification for sitting on the sidelines, or worse, for betting against those small number of stocks advancing in such an unhealthy environment? They currently have "available, unable to place" written on the tops of their resumes, which are at the bottom of the paper piles on headhunters' desks all over the country.