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: GVTucker who wrote (126993)	2/9/2001 8:59:45 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

OT Hi GV, RE: "Each market cycle differs from the last. For example, in the early parts of the bull market, the stocks that led us were traditionally recession resistant stocks--things like drugs and foods. MRK and KO performed great. Tech stocks were great trading vehicles, sure, but they weren't long term investments. Intel's performance from 1983 through the end of the decade was horrid. Everyone who bought that cyclicality argument missed out on a heck of a lot in the 90's....It just seems to me that the economy is such a different world that imbalances will cause opportunity in a different place." -------------------- Message 15320988 GV, excellent post. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. What do you think about the low unemployment rate, even in the face of major layoffs (Chrysler, LU 10,000, Motorola 4,000 today, Dell 2000 today, etc. etc.)? In the face of all these layoffs, do you think the unemployment rate will increase a lot, or, do you think the unemployed will simply be absorbed into different jobs? RE: Real Estate In Silicon Valley, I heard the bids on homes were going $100k to $200k over the asking price last year. Now, I hear the same homes are selling $50k- $100k under the bid. While a decrease of $200k isn't small, I believe housing prices (by Silicon Valley standards) will not erode significantly unless the unemployment rate increases significantly. I think the key to home prices will be the unemployment rate. But even though unemployment rate is low, there have been quite a few expensive homes recently put on the market, probably because ownership of expensive homes is more dependent upon the stock market. I saw six homes for sale on one road. Last year, not one home was for sale on this road. Nasdaq falls, then homes go up for sale. Interesting how that works. There aren't as many "mid-range" homes for sale, relatively speaking (when compared to normalized historical patterns) as there are estate homes (again, when normalized to historical patterns), probably because ownership of mid-range homes is probably more dependent upon a person's salary than investments or stock, which means these home owners are not dependent upon the up/downs of Nasdaq, unlike estate home owners. (This is all a guess). I think the first homes that get hit in a stock market correction (and possibly recession??) are the more expensive estate homes because of the reliance on the stock market. I don't expect to see mid-range homes to be severely impacted until unemployment rate increases significantly. I'm wondering at what point does real estate become a worthwhile investment? My sense of the situation is: real estate isn't like stock because people tend to hold on and not realize their losses. Folks hold onto their homes unless something drastic happens, like a long stretch of unemployment after savings have dried up. The home prices seem to be highly dependent upon the unemployment rate, and that would have to increase significantly in order for home prices to come down. It is also dependent upon the number of newly created jobs. There seem to be less startups being launched now than before, thus possibly less jobs created by startups, which could mean less home buyers in Silicon Valley, the land of startups. (I wonder where a good website is on these types of statistics?) Real estate has already experienced a significant run-up, and this makes me question the value of it as a potential investment. Most folks I ask suggest it will stay flat for several years, barring inflation. But like you, I somewhat am inclined to believe that the imbalance may occur somewhere different, but I'm not sure where that would be. What do you think? RE: "inflationary-driven recession" Would you please expand your thoughts on this? Unrelated to this post, I read in the newspaper that one of my mentor's companies isn't in business (correction/edit: actually, his company is still in business. It was recently bought out, but now operates under the parent company's name). He's a great entrepreneur too and has been very successful in the past. This is spooky. Regards, Amy J