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 : Semi-Equips - Buy when BLOOD is running in the streets! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WTSherman who wrote (9351)	1/20/2001 2:28:23 PM
From: scott_jiminez	Respond to of 10921

I am really unsure what your point is. I suggest you read though this thread starting from the beginning of last year. I've tried to learn from my experience. I'm aware that the Nikkei is trading at 1/3 its level of 1989. I'm aware of the risks of the concept of predictability. I'm aware of the misapplication of cognitive dissonance (I was a psych major). Most of all, I'm aware of hubris (my favorite word in the whole wide world) as the signature concept that summarizes the rest of your post. Japan's entire economy was a bubble. It burst. We had an internet/technology bubble and it imploded. The NAZ is down ~50%; the Dow is down exactly 8.4% from its all time high. The US economy has slowed but is still intact. There are countless arguments in favor of resiliency...and for a quick and sustained recovery. I chose to believe these. Others see the gloom and doom all around them and believe it's conclusive handwriting. At the beginning of December, the economic news was poor. At the beginning of December, the equipment sector bottomed. Since the beginning of December, the economic news has become progressively worse. Since the beginning of December, the equipment sector has rallied 50-70%. This makes perfect sense to me because I'm trying to prudently invoke the experience of the last 12 months. Experience and predictability are two very different perspectives.

To: WTSherman who wrote (9351)	1/20/2001 2:52:26 PM
From: semi2000	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10921

Thanks for your post, IMO Mr. GS will lower rates by .25% by jan end. I doubt he will spend all ammo without seeing impact of his change in minds (two points for a line?) and second - Bush keeps talking of tax cut which will eventually get factored in stock market and he won't have to do as much work. In the mean time consumer sentiment will suffer, unemployment will rise and resession will become more apparant. Look at how government is late and probably ineffective in handling CA energy crisis. There is no easy way out of it. And probably GS got what he wanted all along - death of irrational exuberence. I doubt he will rollback all that in hurry I hope I am totally wrong. All IMHO

To: WTSherman who wrote (9351)	1/20/2001 3:34:12 PM
From: scott_jiminez	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 10921

You say, 'I'm also not sure what you're talking about when you refer to what others on the thread are saying.' We had the spectacle last year of numerous posters here, on the AMAT thread, and elsewhere, totally trashing Jon Joseph for predicting a downturn in the industry. The phrase 'They get paid for that???' was worn threadbare. At the time the evidence was everywhere that demand was strong and a sustained level of revenues was to be expected. Most contrasting views were smothered by a cacophony of posters expressing this dogma. Jon Joseph was right. Now we have a similar cacophony of posters expressing the dogma of sustained downturn with a significant impact on the sector through most, if not all, of 2001. And the hidden voices, such as (at least) 2 fed governors, and others, saying the second half of the year will be strong, are barely heard. And just as we heard the fully reasonable rationalizations of why Jon Joseph was plain silly, now we're hearing all the perfectly logical reasons why this slowdown will be significant/severe. We should have paid MUCH more attention to the lone voice in the corner last summer. Draw your own analogies to the present environment.

To: WTSherman who wrote (9351)	1/20/2001 4:36:31 PM
From: Jerome	Respond to of 10921

"cognitive dissonance", .... now that a very descriptive term. Lot of that on the SI threads. Along with that I would like to add incremental knowledge...everyone on these threads has a whole bunch of increments on which they base buy and sell or buy and hold decisions.But all the increments add up to either 80 or 120. Considering the nice run lately in these stocks some ... healthy skepticism .... is in order. Have a good week-end... Jerome

To: WTSherman who wrote (9351)	1/20/2001 5:36:59 PM
From: Q.	Respond to of 10921

I believe psychologists call this phenomena "cognitive dissonance", that is ignoring information that conflicts with core beliefs. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE is a theory of Leon Festinger’s stating that a state of dissonance (which is uncomfortable) is produced when there is an inconsistency between (A) two beliefs, or (B) between a belief and a behavior. For example, if I believe that cigarette smoking causes cancer, and I smoke cigarettes, then dissonance should occur. I am then motivated to reduce the dissonance by either stopping smoking or by changing my attitude about the smoking-cancer link (“The research is bad” “The super-light, low tar cigarettes I smoke couldn’t possibly cause cancer”). uwm.edu