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.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Danny who wrote (110434)	10/13/2000 2:22:36 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Danny: "Let's be realistic!" Actually, the Naz at 400 times earnings earlier this year is a pretty good sign that being realistic is the last thing anybody wants to be. And as for the car analogy, the possibility of an accident does not keep me from driving but it does influence how I drive. BTW, I drive a motorcycle most of the time, and I never get on the bike without being aware of what a serious mistake would cost me. Take care.

To: Danny who wrote (110434)	10/13/2000 2:36:21 PM
From: Eric Wells	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164684

Let's be realistic! NASDAQ at 2500? Danny - don't lose sight of the fact that on Oct 13, 1999, the Nasdaq closed at 2801. With the Nasdaq currently at 3230, that's about a 15% gain for a 12 month period - which is actually pretty high by historical standards. The last time the Nasdaq traded around 2500 was on August 9, 1999. If we were to drop to 2500, that would represent a 12 month decline of around 11% - which again by historical standards is not unheard of. What is unheard of is the market gaining 80% in a year. The fact that we are at 3200 now actually seems almost "normal" to me by historical standards. And if we were to drop to 2500, I would consider that "normal" as well. Don't let your thinking on the market get clouded by what happened between Oct. 1999 and March 2000 - those six months were an anomaly - something that we are not likely to see, and hopefully will not see, again (at least not for a while). What concerns me at the moment is that there still are many stocks that I consider over-valued by historical standards of valuation. I also see the threat of inflation and the threat of international instability. And with all this, we are still up 15% over the past 12 months. At most other points in history, we wouldn't be up 15% - we'd likely be flat or down - perhaps down 11% to 2500. But don't tell this to the New Econ guys - because they'll tell you things are different this time. Thanks, -Eric

To: Danny who wrote (110434)	10/14/2000 1:09:21 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

Danny, It was Ike that called for a Nasdaq of 600. I believe he still owns gold<G> Glenn

To: Danny who wrote (110434)	10/16/2000 9:30:19 AM
From: Alomex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Let's be realistic! NASDAQ at 2500? I can believe it. at 2000? I doubt but can still believe it. Anything below 2000 is just a wishful thinking at this point. Nasdaq can go below 2000 no problem. About 18 months (I think) ago Nasdaq looked overvalued at 2400... Just keep that in mind...

To: Danny who wrote (110434)	3/12/2001 4:18:55 PM
From: Alomex	Respond to of 164684

It has become before fashionable on this thread to blame somebody else for losing your money, be it WH, Fowler, or Blodget. Few are willing to admit to their mistake. There were many here and elsewhere who kept warning about the bubble, and the typical response was disbelief. Here's our old friend Danny who replied to our warnings about the bubble with "you have much to learn from me about investing":: Let's be realistic! NASDAQ at 2500? I can believe it. at 2000? I doubt but can still believe it. Anything below 2000 is just a wishful thinking...