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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ggamer who wrote (87599)	11/16/2000 3:16:26 PM
From: Cooters	Respond to of 152472

<<but I feel like I am missing out compared to friends and family who see their home prices go up $10K a month.>> That is how they define both a top and a bubble. Good Luck! Cooters

To: ggamer who wrote (87599)	11/16/2000 3:20:51 PM
From: Sawtooth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

<<I am very confident about holding my QCOM shares but wouldn't you say that owning a property in the past has been a safer bet than owning shares in companies like QCOM.>> I like real estate and I like stocks but the answer to your question is largely dependent on where in the respective value cycle you make your purchase. No one can escape "Buy low, sell high" if your goal is a profit. The numbers can strip away some of the emotional side of the decision. One good approach is to do a comparison of the relative upsides, with a risk adjustment/probability factor thrown in for good measure, over a reasonable timeframe. Good luck! .....VVVVVVVVVV

To: ggamer who wrote (87599)	11/16/2000 3:24:27 PM
From: Win-Lose-Draw	Respond to of 152472

but wouldn't you say that owning a property in the past has been a safer bet than owning shares in companies like QCOM I'm sure someone will plunk down a pointer to a study showing long-term returns on RE vs stocks, but there is a much simpler way to think about this... Real Estate MARKET. Stock MARKET. They're both markets, and all the usual rules apply. You win by selling for more than you bought...and you can't "buy low sell high" if you're "buying high". Every market corrects.

To: ggamer who wrote (87599)	11/16/2000 3:48:04 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

re: owning a property in the past has been a safer bet than owning shares in companies like QCOM Define "safe". Is it: 1. small short-term volatility, or 2. excellent odds, over the long-term, of making a return much better than Treasuries? QCOM is safer if you use #2 (which I do). Over the last 10 years, stocks have done a lot better than real estate or bonds. But there are just as many 10-year periods in the past (and some 30-year periods as well), when those other asset classes outperformed stocks. Over the last century, more people have gotten rich owning real estate than stocks. But, I think stocks will continue to outperform real estate, for the next decade at least. You get rich by owning something scarce and necessary. The classic case for real estate is: "they aren't making any more of it". True. But I think, going forward, that the crucial Intellectual Property of the Information Age will be an even scarcer and more necessary Property. If you want some Real Estate for diversification, here's what I'd do: Wait till the next recession (no, the business cycle has not been repealed). Then buy a big chunk of property in the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska (just south of Anchorage, a prime tourist area, the finest scenery in the world). Prices are reasonable, and will get more so if a recession causes people to (temporarily) stop taking expensive vacations. But 95% of the land there is National Park, State Park, national forest, wildlife refuge, etc., and unavailable for development. So, property is scarce. In the Bay Area, land prices are forcing growth to go elsewhere (Austin, Sacramento, Portland, etc.). Just like property prices (and taxes) in New York City made a lot of big companies move their headquarters out. This will continue, IMO. And you don't want to be buying after a huge runup.

To: ggamer who wrote (87599)	11/16/2000 7:05:36 PM
From: cfoe	Respond to of 152472

but wouldn't you say that owning a property in the past has been a safer bet than owning shares in companies like QCOM I bought a home in the Bay Area in '89, at the very top of the previous "bubble." soon after prices started to tumble and when they stopped, I would say I had lost more than 25%. On the other hand my current home has probably increased by at least 50% since I bought it three years ago. So there are no guarantees. My assessment is that we are definitely much closer to the top (if we haven't crested it already). I doubt their will be very many (if any) more $10,000 a month increases for the foreseeable future. Of course, if you really want to buy now, maybe you could give us the last $10,000 increase for this cycle <ggg>.