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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Box-By-The-Riviera™ who wrote (94132)	4/14/2001 1:58:09 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

What does Russell have to say? Stay out? I don't get it. Is he looking backward or forward? I already know there's risk, long or short, so why do I need this codger telling me. But there's a huge difference buying WCOM for instance at 18 compared to 60. He seems to se no difference at all, just historical longterm perspectives which don't help short-term traders a bit. Also he seems to see no difference between sectors and stocks. Some with lots of debt. Some with no debt. Some riding high, some in the toilet. There are plenty of different mini markets inside the big market, and different ways to play each at different price levels, and with the volitiolity we have these days, any stock could be a buy or a sell the same week. Like INTC at 22.5 or 28.5 the same week after major analysts both downgraded and upgraded within 72 hours of each other, working together probably. And what if INTC now goes to 35? That's a 12.5 point move within two weeks. Very tradeable. And if it falls back down that's tradeable too. Russell also doesn't even mention the techs just fell 80-90% in some cases within months, not years but months, and in some cases 50% in one day. He seems to be living in the past or living up in the clouds. Maybe we are in a five-year bear market (possible if the energy boys from Texas rip us off for the next four years) but there will still be plenty of points to go long and short or both along the way. right now I'd stay long until May 15th anyway. But no one knows, just speculating as always.

To: Box-By-The-Riviera™ who wrote (94132)	4/14/2001 8:17:48 PM
From: pvz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Can somebody explain to me how inflation and interest rates fit in with Richard Russell's view that dividend yields are currently too low compared with the other periods he mentions in his interview? It seems to me that comparing nominal rates is too simplistic. If I recall correctly, 1982 was a period of high interest rates and inflation, which is not what is going on today. Also, something that has been niggling me ever since reading the article earlier today, is the 'widows and orphans' controversy I last heard much about when studying accounting back in the eighties. Could it be that a paradigm shift has been taking place whereby companies no longer wish to burden investors with tax inefficient dividends, especially when they can put those funds to better use in the growth of their businesses? I for one, would prefer to invest in bonds or money market funds if I were looking for a steady income stream taxable at the highest rates. Isn't that why news of major stock buy-backs at market bottoms is more likely to to please shareholders? <<But things also could get much worse. At other major bear-market bottoms, the Industrials have tended to sell at 10 times earnings and yield 6%. We saw a 10% yield in 1932, but that was a historic extreme. In 1949, in 1974 and again in 1982, the yield at the bottom was about 6%. Assuming current dividends on the DJIA components hold up, which they probably won't, the index could fall to between 3000 and 4000.>>