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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Stock Attack II - A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lee Lichterman III who wrote (2463)	3/9/2001 4:57:45 PM
From: Paul Shread	Respond to of 52237

Given that 62% is close to the 59% the Nasdaq has fallen so far, I guess the 78% level would mean 800 more points from the top, which would line up with the 1984 COMPX trendline at about 1350. Should probably go ask HB myself. Try the chart again; been having an awful time with ftp transfers today: cache.wsrn.com

To: Lee Lichterman III who wrote (2463)	3/9/2001 5:50:46 PM
From: donald sew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52237

Lee, >>>> Don't know exactly where the 78% lelvel is. Hopefully it will be near our 1500 target although I have trend line support around 1700 for this immediate push down. <<<< I dont know what figures he was using, but extrapulating it, the 78% level would be around 1070. Assuming he was using the recent trough of 1838 as the 62% level, then that decline was 2978 points off of the NDX 4816 peak. So 62:78 as 2978:X, where X=3746. 4816-3746=1070. However I dont think that is correct since that would imply that he was basicly using 0 as the starting point. So I went back to a historical log chart stockcharts.com Per that chart it appears that the rally in the NAZ started in 1990 when the low was around 330 on the NAZ. So for this discussion, lets use 330 as the initiating trough and 5132 as the ending peak, so the rally lasted about 4800 NAZ points. So here are the various FIBONACCI RETRACEMENT levels based on these figures for the NAZ: 38% - 3308 50% - 2732 62% - 2157 78% - 1388

To: Lee Lichterman III who wrote (2463)	3/10/2001 12:53:35 PM
From: Lee Lichterman III	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52237

from Buffet.... ....we warn you that there is nothing symmetrical about surprises in the insurance business: They almost always are unpleasant. ...Our growth will be slow, however, if State Farm elects to continue bearing the underwriting losses that it is now suffering. ...In 2000, we sold nearly all of our Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae shares.... ...Leaving aside tax factors, the formula we use for evaluating stocks and businesses is identical. Indeed, the formula for valuing all assets that are purchased for financial gain has been unchanged since it was first laid out by a very smart man in about 600 B.C. (though he wasn’t smart enough to know it was 600 B.C.). The oracle was Aesop and his enduring, though somewhat incomplete, investment insight was “a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.” To flesh out this principle, you must answer only three questions. How certain are you that there are indeed birds in the bush? When will they emerge and how many will there be? What is the risk-free interest rate (which we consider to be the yield on long-term U.S. bonds)? If you can answer these three questions, you will know the maximum value of the bush ¾ and the maximum number of the birds you now possess that should be offered for it. And, of course, don’t literally think birds. Think dollars. Aesop’s investment axiom, thus expanded and converted into dollars, is immutable. It applies to outlays for farms, oil royalties, bonds, stocks, lottery tickets, and manufacturing plants. And neither the advent of the steam engine, the harnessing of electricity nor the creation of the automobile changed the formula one iota — nor will the Internet. Just insert the correct numbers, and you can rank the attractiveness of all possible uses of capital throughout the universe. Common yardsticks such as dividend yield, the ratio of price to earnings or to book value, and even growth rates have nothing to do with valuation except to the extent they provide clues to the amount and timing of cash flows into and from the business. Indeed, growth can destroy value if it requires cash inputs in the early years of a project or enterprise that exceed the discounted value of the cash that those assets will generate in later years. Market commentators and investment managers who glibly refer to “growth” and “value” styles as contrasting approaches to investment are displaying their ignorance, not their sophistication. Growth is simply a component ¾ usually a plus, sometimes a minus ¾ in the value equation..... ...The line separating investment and speculation, which is never bright and clear, becomes blurred still further when most market participants have recently enjoyed triumphs. Nothing sedates rationality like large doses of effortless money...... ...What actually occurs in these cases is wealth transfer, often on a massive scale. By shamelessly merchandising birdless bushes, promoters have in recent years moved billions of dollars from the pockets of the public to their own purses (and to those of their friends and associates). The fact is that a bubble market has allowed the creation of bubble companies, entities designed more with an eye to making money off investors rather than for them. Too often, an IPO, not profits, was the primary goal of a company’s promoters. At bottom, the “business model” for these companies has been the old-fashioned chain letter, for which many fee-hungry investment bankers acted as eager postmen.... ...I’ve warned you in the past that you should not believe everything you read or hear about Berkshire ¾ even when it is published or broadcast by a prestigious news organization. Indeed, erroneous reports are particularly dangerous when they are circulated by highly-respected members of the media, simply because most readers and listeners know these outlets to be generally credible and therefore believe what they say.... berkshirehathaway.com ============================================= boards.fool.com ==================================== Ameritraders 91.3% buys Friday ameritradeindex.com