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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The New Economy and its Winners -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (7274)	5/29/2001 6:02:28 PM
From: craig crawford	Respond to of 57684

>> More to this specific point, the institutions disgorged technology positions last year and early this year and are underweight the group. << I imagine that has been rectified in the last month or so with the Nasdaq up 40%. Precisely why I suggested taking profits. You didn't hear me screaming sell at 1600. But at 2200-2300...maybe not screaming, but not a bad idea to sell at least some tech. >> Fund managers buy to specific weightings, and will HAVE to buy tech stocks to keep the weighting stable << Hooey. Fund managers have been underweight gold for years. Gold & oil were major bubbles in 1980 and only recently did black syrup become popular again. Coal stocks were ignored for many years. Gold is still languishing. It is beyond me why you can't even FATHOM the notion that just maybe your tech stocks will languish for years as well. That possible script doesn't even seem to enter your mind. >> Then they have to buy more as technology weighting in the S&P grows into a recovery. They're already in that position as the tech indices improve faster than the S&P. << More arguments saying people HAVE to buy tech stocks because they are going up and they always have gone up and they always will go up! Now who is the cementhead!