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 : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Voltaire who wrote (33533)	3/14/2001 7:36:52 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 65232

The Nasdaq: Are We There Yet?... ____________________________________________________ Wednesday March 14, 5:52 pm Eastern Time Morningstar.com By Josh Peters <<They called it the new economy, and so it was. Many believed the old ways of analyzing companies and assigning values didn't apply to technology stocks. In that vacuum of fundamental analysis, the Nasdaq rose to breathtaking heights. Now the same absence of logic that fostered the rise haunts the market's staggering fall. As investors and observers struggle to get a grip on what an ``undervalued'' tech sector might look like, there simply isn't much to go on. Juice from Concentrate To understand the bust, it's well worth looking at the boom--and the boom just ended was stranger than most. Even though the broad market appeared to soar in the late 1990s, a tiny number of stocks did the vast majority of the soaring. Just 11 stocks were responsible for half of the market's $5.5 trillion gain in value (as measured by the Wilshire 5000) between the end of 1997 and the market's peak on March 24, 2000. The same 11, in turn, account for half of the market's $4 trillion loss since then. Cisco Systems alone created a staggering $487 billion, only to give $413 billion of it back. The loss alone is enough money to buy every living American a brand-new, well-equipped PC. You can bet that Dell ($89 billion erased) would've appreciated the business. Apples and Oranges Historically, the past has been a decent guide to the future, at least when it comes to evaluating a company's potential. But the sheer size, narrowness, and speed of the market's changes make historical comparisons virtually meaningless. With just 11 stocks accounting for half the total change in value of the market, and only five years of Internet-age economic activity available for consideration, there simply aren't enough data points to draw reasonable conclusions. Of course, that isn't stopping comparisons from being made, most relying on the once-maligned price/earnings ratio. It's clear that the Nasdaq was overpriced, but how much is only obvious in hindsight. According to Nasdaq's own research department, the Nasdaq 100 peaked at a heady 135 times trailing earnings last February. But while that value might represent a ceiling, the floor has yet to be established. Even Monday's Nasdaq 100 P/E of 44 could yet prove ridiculously expensive or ridiculously cheap. Others, including Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, look to more distant historical trends for guidance. But examining overall valuation levels over the past three decades doesn't offer much help in evaluating where the Nasdaq belongs today. Until the mid-1990s, the Nasdaq was less a market of the future than the Big Board's double-A farm club; its most important listings were mostly industrials that couldn't quite meet NYSE prestige requirements. Even with a muted growth outlook, Cisco's valuation doesn't match up well with the typical Nasdaq 100 stock of 1985--a class that included Bob Evans Farms and Yellow Freight System. Irrational...Despair Complicating matters further, trying to establish some ``average'' or ``reasonable'' value for the tech sector may have no practical value at all. The nature of irrational exuberance is that it inevitably leads to irrational despair. Whatever the reasonable value of the Nasdaq is, it will probably plunge far below that mark before an actual bottom is established. Then again, maybe the bottom has been established already--it won't be obvious for some time. Huge economic changes lent some merit to the sector's runup, and it took a quadrupling of the markets in less than three years to establish what ``overvalued'' really looked like. While some individual stocks continue to offer good opportunities, as they do through all markets, we'll only see the tech sector as undervalued in the rearview mirror.>>

To: Voltaire who wrote (33533)	3/14/2001 7:41:05 PM
From: Venkie	Respond to of 65232

he wants to post on the porch. To:Jumper who wrote (80564) From: Donnie Y Wednesday, Mar 14, 2001 7:39 PM Respond to of 80628 You can't post on the porch and here's why. 1.your an asshole 2.your an asshole 3.your an asshole Once you get your head out of your butt and the whole world doesn't look like $hit then MAYBE you will learn how to play with nice people..Until then...keep your head up your butt and let life look like $hit since that's a familiar place that you feel comfortable. It's not my fault that you hv low character and that no one wants to play with you. Now keep your ass off the porch and hope they don't ban you from here. Some of these nice folks don't like ASHOLES either I love when I get to do this !!!!!! GFY n-g HO HO HO Your best Friend Venkster..... :)

To: Voltaire who wrote (33533)	3/14/2001 8:39:54 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

Bill Gross on our less than omnipotent Fed Chairman and the Market... Message 15505056 Best Regards, Scott

To: Voltaire who wrote (33533)	3/14/2001 8:59:44 PM
From: synchro_fan	Respond to of 65232

<<- Any man his age and cramming for the finals is not concerned about any circles or anything round for that matter, he is much more concerned about other configurations such as prone or flat line.>>>' ROFLMAO....Good game today Vman?? lololololol Good to see you in fine form again! Syncie

To: Voltaire who wrote (33533)	3/14/2001 10:18:40 PM
From: Dutch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

Tom, I for one agree and have agreed with your "buy this market" mantra. If one are a net saver and dollar cost average each month and don't load the boat on every dip over a ten year period one will be fulfilled beyond their wildest dreams. This past year I lost over 500k, over the past 10 hell don't even ask (that was good). I did take the opportunity to refinance my home, 15 yrs @ 6.5 (no points etc) and drop a 100k on the loan value. My wife and I still save 4k per month...and yes I dollar cost averaged at naz 3000, 4000 and 5000+. Do I regret it? NO. I'll keep doing it until the cows come home. When the naz got wild (to the upside) my dollar cost averaging was somewhat meaningless. This is where I owe you special thanks. On the way down I wrote covered calls on all, but CREE...God I wish I had. I even started writing 10% deep in the money and did not get called...lol. Keith is a politely bothersome antagonist. Do we need them? yes. To my knowledge you never told keith to go on margin, buy ICGE, SSTI or number of his other holdings. Did he ever write meaningfull covered calls? ATM or ITM...don't think so only his full service SSB VP will know the truth. I would think that his SSB VP (of the whole Southeast) would have talked him out of some of that. Ah...Yes, but the commissions he was generating. That might account for some of their guidance. The most important thing you posted at naz 5000 was when you think you are swimming in money...SPEND and ENJOY some of it. Hope you like your kitchen; I like mine. I have learned many lessons...I helped my mother in-law and she is net up, but not from her highs. lol. Thanks Tom. Regards, Dutch PS I am filing a class action against Battipaglia, Kudlow...etc. rotflmao