SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Katherine Derbyshire who wrote (45819)4/23/2001 11:25:00 PM
From: StanX Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 70976
 
Katherine, I certainly respect you opinion and understand the position you state.

One point to make is that from the highs to this low so quickly does not mean we will not go lower. I could make a position that the 2000 highs of Feb & March was due to the over-exuberance Mr. Green-Jeans had mentioned. If we take as little as 15% of these all time highs of Feb & March 2000, then the slopes of the 1997-98 and 2000-01 are very similar.

But as others have said, "history may not repeat itself, but not learning from history is repeatable".

Stan



To: Katherine Derbyshire who wrote (45819)4/24/2001 12:37:10 AM
From: brunn  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 70976
 
Bill McClean (using revenue growth numbers, not BtB) has suggested that the area under (integral of) the up-cycle part of the curve is roughly equal to the area under the down-cycle part of the curve.

If this is true, one must take into account just how big of a bubble was created a year ago with Book to Bills running at record-making levels of 1.3-1.4 and higher for months. There was a lot of area built under that curve. Although I see your point that possibly one month of very bad news may be like getting through several months of fairly bad news one has to consider that under Bill McClean's thesis we're balancing this very bad news against a string of months of very good news.