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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tony Viola who wrote (164277)	3/3/2001 3:20:39 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

Perhaps he erred on the margin , but that doesn't make him the scapegoat for all the fools who believed there was no limit to what one should pay for AMZN, CSCO, JDSU, YHOO and all the other bubble stocks, or that the "old rules" of investing no longer applied - the "new paradigm" thinking that was nothing more than a rationalization for greed driven decisions by venture capitalists, underwriters and their "analysts", and the investing public. It was a mania, plain and simple, and the timing of monetary policy shifts possibly being a few months off or the last quarter or half point hike possibly being too much makes little difference. The mania was well along, well into bubble territory, before any Y2K liquidity juicing and the bubble was going to pop eventually, with increasingly serious consequences the longer it continued, regardless of monetary policy. Personally, I think he should have tightened much sooner, but he had the Asian monetary crisis threatening to take the global economy down right at the time the I'nut bubble was starting to get out of hand. And, while I think the only reason Y2K wasn't a problem was BECAUSE everyone made such a big deal out of it, I agree he juiced things too much. Still, he can't control the psychology of a mob. He did warn us, though. Remember "irrational exuberance"? The ridiculous thing now is all the fools who won't take responsibility for their own foolishness. They would rather rant about criminal fed governors, criminal market makers and criminal managements. JMO, Bob PS: The one direction I think it is fair to point fingers is toward the Wall Street "analysts" who thought their job was to promote stocks rather than analyze companies and advise investors. Henry Blodget is being sued and probably deserves it (as does his employer). Clients go to full service firms for advice and research, not to have their broker turn them into the next greater fool by sending them stock promoting BS labeled as "research". These analysts and firms have a fiduciary duty to the investors they serve, both retail and institutional, and they failed them - at least some of them. PPS: Those who mortgaged their homes to buy AMZN on margin at Datek and Ameritrade, BTW, have no one to blame but themselves, unless they can prove fraud - then they are only partially to blame for their losses.