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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BGR who wrote (96311)	6/27/2002 2:05:54 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

As for stocks being cheap vs. pricey, its a wash in the long run two points... 1. that wash is the cleaning of your clock. i argued extensively with you about the insanity and obviousness of the bubble. i missed the ENTIRE downturn, BGR. all of it. in fact, i'm up pretty big since march of 2000. i will admit i did take a lot of stock risk since 25% of my portfolio was in a single stock. 2. in the long run, you are dead. as am i. ok, a third point. your pov is for the mentally lazy - the one button prescription to riches. it doesn't exist. you gotta use you noggin' in the long term and make wise choices. a mania market looks good during the mania. however, history shows the aftermath is always pretty bad - without exception. why would this time be different? b/c bgr is in the house? -lol- you shoulda seen it coming, bro. i did. so did mike. we didn't switch our money into the naz near the top - remember me calling you crazy? weren't you arguing how the naz would continue to outperform? did you mean a waterfall? -lol-

To: BGR who wrote (96311)	6/27/2002 10:27:54 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

BGR, 100s of 1000s of mutual funds? I've told you a million times not to exaggerate. <G> In 1985 there were less than 1100 mutual funds. And that was after a huge growth spurt. When Pioneer started, there were something like 5. When ICOA started, it was more like 12 funds. You are mistaking a 1990s bubble in fund creation for history. Nuh, uh, if you want to do 40 year histories. I simply picked those two funds because I know they existed during the Depression. Wellington Fund did, too, but it is balanced and, at that time, balanced meant 50/50 stocks and bonds. So, when they made money in 1929, it isn't really fair to compare them to the crash and burn of the indices. I agree that focusing on your job is more important than investing for most people. That's why 401K plans suck so much. But, given the co. matching funds, most people have made a little money, even if they've indexed. I agree that active traders like Warren Buffett and Peter Lynch and George Soros are aberrations. Very few can hope to duplicate their success. But where are the indexing aberrations? With active trading, it is at least possible to make billions. With indexing, it is only possible if you start with a fortune.