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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert Rose who wrote (122755)	4/3/2001 12:48:01 PM
From: 16yearcycle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164687

RR, you are completely right about asset allocation. But why do you persist in discussing it when the other thread was started to discuss stocks? You were even asked to start a thread on asset allocation, but didn't, as far as I know. Some evidence: ------------------------------------------------------- But the time is May, 2000. The Fed has been tightening interest rates for quite a while, long rates have backed up, and there is widespread fear and disillusionment among technology investors who have seen their favorite New Economy names halved or worse. Was it all a mania that has "ended badly"? or is this just another chilling, spectacular correction in the group similar to those that have come before? Who are the survivors, the true athletes that will lead from here? Notes: This is a moderated spin-off by some contributors to the popular Amazon thread, where we have discussed seemingly everything (sometimes including Amazon!) for years. I hope discussion here, if it develops, will be as freewheeling and entertaining as ever. This thread is for collaborating and brainstorming. ------------------------------------------- To:Robert Rose who wrote (350) From: William Harmond Friday, May 19, 2000 4:16 PM View Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6034 >>And therefore worthy of some discussion on these threads Sure. I just don't personally have much use for the strategist's calls like "60% stocks, 30% bonds, and 10% cash".

To: Robert Rose who wrote (122755)	4/3/2001 1:22:06 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 164687

Robert "my point, ike, is that VIRTUALLY NO ONE, no matter how wealthy originally, or how much they made on the left shoulder of the bubble, could possibly survive this mess unless they chose to allocate assets to weather it" Ever wonder why they don't serve coffee in Vegas? Or why they don't have exercise classes in crack houses? You need to distinguish between the "new economy" and addiction to stock speculation. The new economy thread has nothing to do with the new economy. Its an "addicts only" club -- its the crack house for "investors" -- poorly informed speculators mostly.

To: Robert Rose who wrote (122755)	4/3/2001 1:49:19 PM
From: re3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164687

rob i agree asset allocation is paramount, but you don't go to a baseball game for the ice skating...i mentioned a poster who had a 90/10 rule and i believe if you go on the ask michael burke thread you could be assisted with a link to his best work on that topic.

To: Robert Rose who wrote (122755)	4/3/2001 6:48:15 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164687

robert, don't look at how much you lost, look at how much you gained and you are still standing. most won't be able to say that. you sound like you are net up since 1998. most people aren't. i know a guy who was conservatively invested until he got tired of under performing. transferred his account to aggressive naz type stocks and maybe a few internet indexes when the naz was 4500. bad mistake. he wanted aggressive and he got it. this sword cuts both ways and cuts deep.