SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Trumptown who wrote (23628)4/9/2000 4:18:00 PM
From: SBerglowe  Respond to of 57584
 
In conjunction with your post it may lend some balance to read the following post:
Message 13382462



To: Trumptown who wrote (23628)4/9/2000 5:48:00 PM
From: Rande Is  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 57584
 
I totally believe he is wrong. Here's why:

P&G and cyclicals have recently moved up off their lows. . . clawing their way back to some pretty decent prices, since my call on value stocks from mid-March. Most have held their values quite well. . . unlike last year, when cyclicals were a flash in the pan. . . so they are already closer to their true value to begin with. . .and he may have greater confidence in the sector, due the fact that they have held their recent gains.

However, when the Nasdaq COMPX took a bath last week, the Dow did NOT hold its value. The cyclicals, financials, value plays and Dow Blue Chips all fell in sympathy with the Nasdaq techs. I believe this will happen again. . .and that even the most boring of cyclicals will not escape the drop.

After the initial tech sell-off, I DO believe there will be another knee-jerk panic rotation into cyclicals, but again it will be short-lived. . .and disappointing. . . after about 4 days. . . as the overall markets weaken and the overall Dow and broader market sympathizes with the Nasdaq COMPX.

OT>I didn't know there was a "market timer of the year". . .perhaps we should submit my track record. . . I could use a new trophy. . . . . <g>

Rande Is