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 : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (40341)	3/13/2001 12:33:36 AM
From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

--Mike Buckley --Mike Buckley Anyone notice an echo?

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (40341)	3/13/2001 12:50:50 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 54805

plenty of discussion about the volatile nature of high-tech investing, but maybe not enough. Volatility? This is Volatility? My portfolio goes down, every day, 6 to 10 percent. I am numb. The only up side is that the 6 to 10 percent is less in dollars each day :) I will not sell. I have so little left now that it is not worth selling! The question now is, not how low it can go, but how long will it take to come back? I suspect 4 to 5 years to see a 5000 Naz, if then. Well, my health is good, my work goes well, and I finally sold my old business and got out from under it. When I drive by the old people in my neighborhood every morning who are standing on the curb, waiting for a bus to take them to some miserable job to keep food on their table, I feel fortunate that I am as well off as I am.

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (40341)	3/13/2001 12:57:15 AM
From: tekboy	Respond to of 54805

Change "risks" to "volatility" and I agree. However, I thought there was plenty of discussion about the volatile nature of high-tech investing, but maybe not enough. first point taken--although it's hard to be quite as cavalier these days about laughing off volatility as unrelated to risk, especially with many of our faves issuing multiple earnings warnings, announcing layoffs, etc. as for the second point, yes, the volatile nature of high-tech investing was indeed stressed--usually with the incantation that longtime gorilla holders had sometimes watched CSCO drop (gasp!) 40% from a peak before righting itself and continuing its ascent. So few were really shaken by the first 40% drop. tekboy/Ares@itwasthosedamnsecondandthird40%dropsthatgotme.com

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (40341)	3/13/2001 10:38:44 AM
From: Judith Williams	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Mike-- change "risks" to "volatility" and I agree. The important part of tekboy's comment was "when the bubble bursts." Beta does wonders in an upmarket. But there is a hungry piper to pay in a down one. To me, that's the ticket for admission to an intensely interesting and potentially profitable game. Sure I paid too much for Siebel. But, as a business proposition, it's a hell of a lot more interesting than a company than sells sugar water, has a PE of 60, negative earnings growth and revenue growth of 3%. --Judith