To: michel ciambra who wrote (25976 ) 10/17/2000 10:00:12 PM From: LLCF Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 27307 <I do not agree. > If you read my post you'll see that I was simply stating that the posters advice was simply a parallel with deteriorating markets of the past... and did not suggest a collapse, although I believe it a possibility myself. That said, I do take exception to many of your posts: * "by my reckoning, a 38.2% retracement from the highs is enough to build a positive picture going forward." Well that's a nice opinion, but then you never know, right? * "Add to that a productivity picture that is still bright, a GDP that will still be in excess of 4% and little or no inflation."- Well that is certainly rosy, and a statement not an analyst on the street supports, sorry. * "Yields on bonds are collapsing and will continue to while the nation pays back its debts through the budget surplus."- Actually yields on high grade corperate bonds continue to rise and credit spreads are now higher than at the time of the LTCM problem when they unwound their positions. Long term government yeilds have been coming down, and the word 'collapse' for their yields suggest a depression. * "The days of the large caps as we know them are over." While I don't disagree, but IMO this statement refutes your statement above about a crash. At this point the companies you suggest will get crushed ARE the index's... * "It is the infrastructure tools companies and data warehousing and storage stocks that will be the next Microsofts"- makes sense to me... however many of the companies that are the customers of this group are on the butt end of the credit spreads I mentioned above... ie they are having a hard time raising money... while I totally agree with your affinity with these companies, every great story has hicups... all I'm saying is don't be surprised by a case of them. DAK