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 : Home on the range where the buffalo roam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Boplicity who wrote (12929)	4/23/2001 7:37:55 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13572

The Dow is only 1200 or so from its all time high, the S&P is still selling here at a PE of 27. It will take a series of bear market (followed by bull moves) to bring a balance in the system again, IMHO. But don't despair, the intermediate bull mves will be quite rewarding. The only problem is that buy the dip is not going to work as it has in the 1990/early 2000 period for a number of years, IMTO. Apart of that, you can buy the dips only if you raised money at the interim peaks. Zeev

To: Boplicity who wrote (12929)	4/23/2001 7:46:23 AM
From: pbull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13572

Isn't it strange how this medium has evolved? Isn't it strange? Isn't it strange how the mainstream media all said, "Never believe anything you read on the Internet." And they dismissed it as a fad. Isn't it strange? But then they backtracked. Had to. So they said, "See, well, what we really meant was, never even consider stock tips you might read on the 'Net, because, you know, they don't come from professionals. "Only professional sales people (a.k.a. brokers) are qualified to discuss investment ideas with you." And then came the first tech wreck. And they said, "See, stay diversified. Own a bunch of really crappy companies in case your best ideas, temporarily, decline in value." Even Peter Lynch refers to this as "deworseification." Isn't it strange? One by one, every single major media company in this country got burned. One by one. Barron's (too bearish), The Journal (too stodgy), USA Today ("own a variety of funds"), CNBS ("Well, our sources say....") And they all went down. Like bowling pins. Because, my friend, when a media company loses its credibility, it loses everything. Everything. So now, times have changed. Had to. Now, the media, in an effort to RESTORE its credibility, turns to the very people it once scoffed at. Us. The people. You. For example, instead of, "Let's ask analyst so-and-so about this stock," now it's, "Let's check and see if that Boplicity guy posted something about that today." Isn't it strange? Today, someone on the 'Net who makes a coherent, reasonable case for a particular course of action, or inaction, is quoted. As a source. As a QUALIFIED source. In contrast, professionals, particularly mutual fund managers and investment analysts from major firms, face harsh questioning about their firm's investment positions, recent underwriting, and potential conflicts of interest. And so now, the marquee names of Wall Street have nicknames such as Harpo, Bagodoughnuts, and, my fave, Farton Briggs. And why not? They have lost any respect they may once have had. And yet, here are all of these "little" people, who communicate daily, who exchange ideas daily, and who have developed a keen sense of the inner workings of the financial world. Amazing. Just amazing. Isn't it strange? PB