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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: craig crawford who wrote (130206)	8/16/2001 10:53:09 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

So, if single digit PEs are your definition of "value" and the only time in the last 40 years when single digit PEs were common was the latter half of the '70s, doesn't that conflict with your claim that it was a terrible time to be in stocks? OK, so you don't like my timing? How about a low-to-low average then? '74 bear market low to '82 bear market low. After all, I'm arguing that now is a good time to buy - a good time for a contrarian to find value. Let's say, for argument sake, that my timing is only half good - I buy at a low and then hold on too long and sell at a low. How would my real returns look then? Nasdaq sat at 54.87 on 10/3/74 and bottomed in '82 at 159.14 on 8/13. That's 14.5% p.a. Over the same period, the CPI went from 50.6 to 97.5 for an 8.7% annual change. Seems emerging growth (and the Nasdaq then was much more of an emerging growth index than now as mature companies were much more likely to move to the NYSE or AMEX) gained 5.8% p.a. after inflation from market low to market low. Not 1999 returns, but it sure doesn't suck. To which you likely reply "hogwash!" PS: Not sure, but I doubt the Naz was loaded with commodity plays then. Most energy stocks, except for the big ones, were on the AMEX.