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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (52734)	5/9/2001 4:07:32 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Personally, I think all those Elliot Wave guys are full of baloney. But that's JMHO. Charles Tutt (TM)

To: michael97123 who wrote (52734)	5/9/2001 5:02:41 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

Mike - I'm not a wave guy. Because I took fourier analysis and know that any finite shape can be described by waves so the wave guys can always prove their theory works for the past. Now, as to the future, and whether 3950 is some right number. Only the shadow knows. I do agree with you that short term the bouyancy of the market is quite strong. What else would describe neutral to positive price movement when the news just keeps rolling out so bad. So if the news ever neutralizes, we we could pop quickly to the upside. We should get lifted higher. I've PM'd elsewhere that I saw 3700 (ish) as a trigger point, mostly based on irrational behaviors. What's -8% when you are trying to avoid -50%? As to timing? 2001 vs 2002? If we follow the '29 scenario (and as of a few months ago it was eerie) then we hit a peak in '01, Late 3Q or early 4Q. But again, timing is irrelevant to me. If the bubble collapses today then CSCO will be a single digit stock, if it collapses 12 months from now it will also be a single digit stock. Maybe double digits late in 2002 if economic growth zooms back. But it's speculation at this point to say the stock should be any higher. IMHO. John.

To: michael97123 who wrote (52734)	5/9/2001 8:51:38 PM
From: Nikole Wollerstein	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

"I figure demographics and an eventual good economy will take care of me " 1946+55=2001 where 1946 is the beginning of the Baby Boom in USA and 55 is the age when people starting looking forward to retirement and shifting assets to more conservative, income producing securities.

To: michael97123 who wrote (52734)	5/9/2001 10:21:42 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

>>much boomer money on the side looking I guess to get even<< Bunk! The consumer is in over his head and has lived for years with double digit stock gains spending like it would never end -- the money on the sidelines waiting to come back in is a myth perpetuated by CNBC. A very large amount of money is 1) gone with the wind because it never was "real" (see NDX) 2) is out and will not go into stocks 3) being held in reserve to pay the rapidly increasing cost of living -- after all people can't really budget the flim-flam put out by the BLS, else they'd be in the poor house