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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pater tenebrarum who wrote (59126)	1/18/2001 9:55:09 AM
From: Oblomov	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

i disagree completely. it's NOT meaningless, because debt needs to be serviced out of disposable income. who services debt with asset sales, unless he's already in financial distress? besides, 2000 was the first year since WW2 in which HH net worth actually FELL, an indication that HH involvement in the stock market is quite large. furthermore, the assets that make up net worth may well decline further in price, while the debt load remains right were it is (well, no, it's actually GROWING). I didn't say it was meaningless, I said it had no meaning per se. Last year, I bought JDSU at a split-adjusted 13 and sold it at 125. I used the profits to pay off my remaining student loans. And I was in absolutely no financial distress. I could easily have serviced this debt from my income, but it simply provided me with a sense of comfort and satisfaction to hold the cancelled note in my hands. I don't think that my experience is unique. For example, my father sold his business a few years ago, and used part of the proceeds to pay off the mortgage on their house. On a rolling 4 quarter basis, HH net worth declined several times post-WW2: 1962 Q2 1970 Q2 1974 Q3 You are correct that 2000 is the first calendar year in which this has occurred. On a quarterly basis, net worth has declined in 25 out of 196 recorded post-WW2 quarters, 3 of which were in 2000. I understand that the '87 crash was precipitated by selling at the margins. Although private involvement in the stock market has grown substantially since 1987, it is still the province of the upper-middle class and the wealthy, despite the populist language used on CNBS. J6P was undoubtedly affected by the Nasdaq decline, but by how much? Let's not exaggerate the impact. The lack of interest in the Nasdaq has already emerged. Retail trading volume is (er... a fraction -g-) of Q1 2000 levels. RE: your other points. I agree. It will be interesting to see what the effect of deflation will be on real estate prices. Certainly RE values on the coasts will fall, but Midwestern RE values have been stable during the last few recessions (Chicago, Detroit, and St. Louis excepted). I don't see why you have to say that you "disagree completely". I think that we largely agree.