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: Sultan who wrote (11357)	5/7/2002 1:51:43 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57684

That locust-cycle article was something I asked Bill Harmond about a few days ago. The problem is I don't think anybody was inventing anything in the 70s when the last cycle took place- all I remember from that time was planned obsolescence and union strikes. Obviously you're not going to get much productivity growth there. These pundits make it seem like theres no fundamental catalyst for anything in the mkt, its all in the cards.... well maybe it is and if so I'm going to buy a bunch of wine and sit around all day watching Oprah! LOL Lizzie

To: Sultan who wrote (11357)	5/7/2002 1:54:21 PM
From: 16yearcycle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57684

"How can any one forecast what will happen for next 17 years" I think it works along these very general lines: the telco equipment stocks soar to multiples of hundreds and hundreds of times ebitda earnings. This was the market itself predicting that telco market would stay at an extraordinary growth rate for years to come. 18 months later, many of these companies were selling at less than the cash and securities they hold(ciena, onis). This is just normal volatilty. Oh, I know that seems excessive, but it must be true. You know the saying, "the market is always right." So in the future something is going to happen that will allow that both the big upside we saw and the downside we are seeing will have been appropriate. I guess it is going to take "17 years" or something to all work out. I don't know where they came up with that but it has got to be some sort of demographic thingy. Or maybe its that it was 17 years from 1965 to 1982. Cool, huh? It should be interesting........;>)