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.

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

To: Rande Is who wrote (35220)	9/18/2000 9:49:18 AM
From: Mark Konrad	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

TA for Boneheads Update: after a quick review over the weekend (a very busy one for me), most of the numbers from last week's post # 34385 appear to still be valid. There were some adjustments and opportunities during the week as well as some trend changes in individual stocks but nothing to warrant a complete overhaul of SPs (support points) or RBOPs (resistance/breakout points). For example, I'm using SPs of 32 and 35 to begin initial positions in RFMD, ICGE is holding its support at 29 1/2 and could be started or added to, QCOM continues the advance we saw last week, etc. ISLD is enjoying a bit of a bounce this morning but it won't mean much until it can convincingly re-establish the support it lost at 25. AOL may have seen its short term low at about 55 and could now begin the sustained upmove I've been waiting for. Most telcoms may also have short term bottoms in. General market direction is like the wind is to a sailor; it's always nice to have it at your back but there are always some stocks and sectors that can move higher even while the averages are heading down. All the above is my opinion only--MK--

To: Rande Is who wrote (35220)	9/18/2000 10:26:37 AM
From: George Burdell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

<Which brings up the question, "could the "concept" of Blue Chips be dead?" I'll leave that subject open to discussion . . .> My point still remains that in the very long term, blue chips are expected to endure and produce. For the very long term holder, short term volatility just helps the dollar cost averaging. A definition of blue chips I had handy calls them 'Stock issued by a well known company with an established record of making money and paying dividends.' I think our differences are primarily semantic. When you point to LU, with a bad haircut since the in the last few months, not even long enough for long term tax eligibility, and say you can't tie your money up for years in hopes that it will double, I point to the 500% return in 5 years, even after the haircuts. Will it double before 2005? Pretty likely. That return beats the long term market average. Will it double in a year? I have no idea. My mother in law, now in early retirement, worked for Sears selling shoes for 30 years, and still has her first share from the stock purchase plan. She pays absolutely no attention to the market, despite her quarter million in 2 stocks (Sears + Dean Witter spin-off). Should she diversify? Oh, hell yes. Should she buy Cisco, which is priced as if it will keep growing until it is larger than the US gov? No. Sometime in the next 10-20 years, CSCO will probably have a PE of 15, and not all by growing into it. Should she buy LU and T? Will they still be here, will they have rewarded her as she reaches her 70s and 80s? Much more likely. And she can check the market twice a year without worry. My mother in law does not read this thread. If she did, she could probably make a lot more money. But most people have an investment strategy closer to hers than yours, and for these folks, blue chips are not dead. George 'EW' Burdell