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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Direct Focus Inc. (DFXI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: whenitgoesup who wrote (576)	5/24/2000 12:47:00 AM
From: trilobyte	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 768

Hi Walt! I will have to disagree with most of what you said... >Yep, still like Greenspan. He is doing his job...removing liquidity so that people don't get carried away with debt (including margin debt) Greenspan is removing the liquidity HE injected in the market ahead of Y2K and following the 98 Asia crisis. He is trying to undo the monster he created! >If they had lots of debt and the market crashed... I mean REALLY crashed, not like the last few months, then people would be ruined. The market has really crashed!!! Did you know the Nasdaq never ever corrected by the amount it has now corrected? (the previous record was a 35% drop in 87... we're nearing 40%). As I don't have to tell you where the "small" investor has his money parked (mostly in nasdaq stocks), it is easy to conclude that people HAVE been ruined already. >The boom-bust cycle is intact If the market value is in any way correlated to the health of the economy, you can be sure the boom-bust cycle is intact NOW!. Really, there was no bust in sight; I'm not so sure about it now... that's a lot of wealth that has vanished in 2 months, that won't go towards buying consumer goods or paying taxes to the government. I would not be surprised if consumer spending came to a screeching halt. Concerning the existence of a boom bust cycle: this would be true if the forces that shaped the cycle were the same through time. However, new technologies constantly change the dynamics of the system and because of that, there is no basis to make a claim for the repeatability of such a cycle, or even the existence of a cycle! The forces that now shape economic growth are widely different from the ones that were present 20, 40 or 80 years ago. There is no reason why economic growth could not continue without interuption for decades given the right set of underlying circumstances. I just think that stating that a downturn is imminent because we've had growth for "too long", and a downturn should've occured on the basis of what we know from previous up-downswings is a fallacy. >and it is his job to smooth out the highs and lows No smoothing here... crazy run-up followed by a crazy downturn. Has never been worse for the Nasdaq! >I have owned DFXI for a long time... but the NEXT few years will be the most rewarding. I held DFXI for a 25 bagger before selling at 19US$ (back in at 28$). Market cap is now 375mil. Another 25 bagger would put us at a market cap of 9.375 billion. Doubtful: the bigger you get the tougher it is to grow. >The main thing is to invest in companies that know their business, have great products AND GREAT MANAGEMENT, and the rest will take care of itself, whether interest rates go up, come down, or stay steady I AGREE!!! Unless you have to sell! (but I don't). Trilobyte. p.s. I'm not upset with YOU... just upset by Greenspan and what I consider very misguided, mostly reactionary policies.