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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (123593)	12/22/2000 12:58:32 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Thread, latest update from the trenches in Silicon Valley (about the local economy): 1) Recruiting We always get aggressive calls from recruiters that are trying to steal people. Recruiters call almost daily trying to steal people. However, today, we got a "do you want to hire a CFO" call today. That was a first. With this, and other news, it sounds like the recruiting business has suddenly changed and they now have some folks they are trying to place. 2) Housing I just heard there were two houses in Silicon Valley (not San Francisco) that were each listed for $800k. However, they were sold for $500k and $550k. I asked, "in the face of accepting a 35% price drop (this would indicate a situation of more sellers than buyers), why am I not seeing more For Sale signs than this? How can a price drop occur without any evidence of many "For Sale" signs? If sellers can't find buyers, there would be more "for sale" signs, right? This leading indicator would exist, so why isn't it there? Why are they selling homes at such a low price (low relative to Silicon Valley costs)? (I will not be convinced we have a shortage of buyers, until I start seeing For Sale signs, which I haven't seen yet.) The answer was something like, the sellers had to sell them immediately - it sounded like panic selling due to folks assuming their stock options would help make their mortgage payments. Possibly these two sellers were victims of mortgages that assumed the 3 Horsemen stocks would not drop more than 50%. 3) Silicon Valley is a stock option economy: Over the past 3 years, the housing prices have increased significantly. The average Silicon Valley home is around $500k according to a report a couple of months ago. However, in several cities, a 3-bedroom house costs $700k. A $700k 3-bedroom house translates into $120k/yr base pay. 4) Average Salary The Silicon Valley average income was about $80k/household per a report 3 years ago. In one of the executive-cities it was about $130k per household per a report 2 years ago. Nonetheless, here's the main point of my post: whether you are an engineer, marketer, or executive, a lot of folks I'm hearing had established mortgages with the assumption their stock options would help them make their mortgage payments. Folks probably had assumed their stock option wouldn't drop below 50%. Real estate costs had increased way too fast over the past 3 years, so some new hires/new folks to the area, bought homes at these over-inflated prices. 5) This is not dotcom stock, but we're talking Intel, Cisco, and Sun stock option folks. I personally think folks shouldn't buy homes that exceed their base salary. But I can why folks are tempted. Let's run the numbers for an entry-level software engineer, an NCG with a BS degree from Stanford, and see what we get: $70k has a net pay of $3.2/mo, which translates into a mortgage of $300k, assuming s/he puts their entire salary into mortgage payments, except $1.2k. That wouldn't even buy a condo in Silicon Valley. The average Silicon Valley home costs $500k. So, this is probably why many Silicon Valley employees (at Intel, Sun, Cisco, etc.) use stock options to make annual balloon payments on their mortgages. Sounds like this has gone past the dotcom crowd and I'm hearing it is now impacting some of the infrastructure company employees. Fortunately, the long-term is solid. I wonder how long this bit of a hiccup, cycle will last? I would guess about a year. Best regards, Amy J PS The malls are still very packed - folks are still shopping.

To: Road Walker who wrote (123593)	12/22/2000 1:05:31 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

RE: "This is a really hard time in the markets, the hardest I've seen in my life. " Do you really think so? I recall my financial instructor had said the 70's yielded a net decrease of 40% over ten years, when factoring in inflation. We're simply experiencing a PE pullback after Nasdaq jumped 86% last year. I think a short-term pullback for a period of one year cannot even compete with the out-of-control 70's inflationary period and the 70's 10-year pullback that resulted in the erosion of money for a solid, long ten years. John, I think this is going to be a short-term pullback. Nothing fundamental is wrong, other than a PE pullback and a normal cycle. Best regards, Amy J

To: Road Walker who wrote (123593)	12/22/2000 10:42:19 AM
From: Tony Viola	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

This is a really hard time in the markets, the hardest I've seen in my life. But I don't think it's time to throw out the stability and independence that is represented by the FOMC. I'm not saying anyone should throw out the FOMC. I believe Greenspan did a good job for some of his years on the job, probably most of the years. That doesn't mean he and his committee will be flawless forever. He went too far this time. I would like to see a poll on such. So, some people are already giving Bush hell and he isn't even in office yet. Yet Mr. G walks on water to some. To affect a strong economy which was showing maybe just a little sign of inflation so drastically is a major foulup. Nuf said for me on this subject. No more except to say I used to strongly defend the guy, on these threads, when people wanted to throw him out. Now I say he way overdid it. JMO. Tony