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 : Home on the range where the buffalo roam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Boplicity who wrote (3368)	8/6/2000 10:09:30 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13572

I have been reading this book on "q", which is a ratio of market price to "value". Guys who wrote it (Smithers) are ultra-bears. They are almost comical, but still, it's really depressing me. Weird: I feel like aliens are beaming me this message: "SELL EVERYTHING!!!!!!" It must be admitted that tech stocks are ridiculously overvalued and rely on the Greater Fool theory for continued appreciation. CSCO is the poster child for this. Growing at 30% and trading at 100+ next year's earnings. This of course does not even take into account the implied EPS dilution of option compensation. Doing so would probably require a writedown equal to the next five years' earnings. All tech is like this. That is the bear's argument. The bull's argument is: SO WHAT? It has been like this for some time now (increasingly geometrically since 95). Question is: can it go on forever. My guess: probably not. Market is so volatile, it might not hurt to sit in cash for a year or two, to "reassess". There will always be new opportunities. BTW, Greg, you were right about NOK being a good short from 43ish. I am beginning to think QCOM could have another leg down.

To: Boplicity who wrote (3368)	8/6/2000 10:17:16 AM
From: Clappy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13572

Some worthy advice that I found: Let Rules, Not Emotions, Define Your Trading Message 14170013

To: Boplicity who wrote (3368)	8/6/2000 5:28:30 PM
From: allen menglin chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13572

Fidelity Fifty dumps tech Second quarter produces some sour performances for other funds, too August 3, 2000: 3:15 p.m. ET cnnfn.cnn.com NEW YORK (CNNfn) - Technology apparently was deemed not so nifty by the portfolio manager of Fidelity Fifty. John Muresianu, who heads the large-cap blend fund, cut his tech holdings to 0 percent - that's zilch -- as of June 30 from 8.4 percent at the end of May, according to the latest monthly report from Fidelity Investments and the company's Web site. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also in this notebook, read about some of the worst-performing mutual funds. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Given that Fidelity Fifty is a concentrated fund with no more than 60 holdings usually, that means Muresianu probably sold Microsoft (MSFT: Research, Estimates) and Cisco (CSCO: Research, Estimates), which were among his top 10 holdings in May and probably accounted for much of the 8.4 percent technology allocation, said Jim Lowell, editor of the independent FidelityInvestor.com. AT&T (T: Research, Estimates) and Vodafone (VOD: Research, Estimates) also slipped from the top 10 list by the end of June. Fidelity officials were not available for comment. The move away from technology was counter to that of Muresianu's Fidelity brethren, who, while not buying more technology, were standing tall with the allocations they already had, Lowell added. Contrary, too, was Muresianu's decision to bump up his energy sector holdings to 23.1 percent from 15.4 percent, and particularly his decision to increase the fund's precious metals exposure to 15.5 percent from 9.9 percent. "No other growth fund at Fidelity has a precious metals holding in its top 10," Lowell said. Fidelity Fifty counted Barrick Gold ?ABX: Research, Estimates) as its No. 1 holding and Newmont Mining ?NEM: Research, Estimates) as its No. 5 at the end of June. "I don't know what it is," Lowell said of Muresianu's reasoning, surmising that perhaps he expects greater consolidation in the beaten down sector or anticipates greater retail momentum for gold in markets such as India. But, Lowell said, "I would rather see him go to 20 percent cash if he's looking for a defensive place." So far, Muresianu's moves have not saved Fidelity Fifty from the market's thrashing of large caps this year. The fund, which is small by Fidelity standards with only $536 million in assets, ranks in the top 2 percent of the worst-performing large-cap blend funds for the year through July 27, according to Morningstar. Year-to-date, the fund is down 10.1 percent. Nevertheless, Lowell is far from writing off the moves or Muresianu, who, he said, "delivers the goods consistently," adding that when Muresianu took over Fidelity Fifty in early 1999, he made the fund worth thinking about for aggressive growth investors interested in niche plays in the market. -- Staff Writer Jeanne Sahadi