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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: isopatch who wrote (88612)	3/13/2001 5:21:31 PM
From: MetalTrader	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

iso, I think one worst year in history in a row would be enough for the nasdaq. while there are still valuation issues to be unwound, it is more likely that we will trade sloppily for the next year rather than bungee jumping sans bungee. Are you predicting a global meltdown which goes beyond recession and will be by it's nature, unpredictable except for those fortunate to guess the unlikely. Perhaps this time it's different..(I thought we'd heard that enough in the bubble)..but I will go with history. Since I am not an avid historian, I will limit myself to the period of my life. While it might be reasonable to presume that the longer and deeper a recession, the more negative the impact on the stock market. Post WWII data do not bear out that presumption. In the eight recessions since 1953, the market performance during the four worst recessions has been essentially the same as the four mildest recessions. The exception is 1973-1975 when the fed was raising rates to fight inflation and a falling dollar during a recession. After the fed eased the second time the market has responded favorably throughout the remainder of the recession regardless of its severity. Another reason to dispute your opinion is my beloved yield curve. While it is not yet steep and normal, it is at least no longer inverted as it was last year. Until the curve steepens, and earnings begin to grow again I won't be an aggressive buyer of growth, but to say that this year will be worse than last year requires a little more meat. Listening to the media and the various threads sounds so much like it did in early 2000. "Even though these stocks look (cheap/expensive) they aren't." I am actually more concerned with the complacency of the defensive stocks than with technology at this point. Could it be that the best sectors try to catch up with tech. Will the naz fall to 1500? maybe...and the S&P another 5% or so..maybe. But as an investor you have to look beyond the understandable corporate doe in headlights posture. With regard to technology, 2001 is over. But as horrific as the prospect for capital spending looks currently, technology has an advantage of much shorter obsolesence than other capital investment. A recession caused by technology overspending will unwind at a more rapid rate than historical capital spending has on the upside as well. There are plenty of secular issues of consumer debt, wealth effect and the like to give one pause...but you can provide those to chew on. mt

To: isopatch who wrote (88612)	3/13/2001 10:26:31 PM
From: pls418	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95453

isopatch & JimL, I for one am starting to nibble on tech below 2000. And if I am early on some of it so be it, it will all work out. And you are right about all those false calls but I do have to smile when I think of all the false calls there has been in the gold market in the last 15 or 20 years. If you would have bought gold everytime it looked like a big bull rally was about to start you would have been long dead and broke. But don't get me wrong I wish you luck. Take care.