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 : Classic TA Workplace -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ajtj99 who wrote (43927)	6/29/2002 11:23:47 AM
From: skinowski	Respond to of 209892

My theory of aging is very simple: Anyone younger than me is young, anyone older than me is middle aged or elderly… the problem is, I count lately more of the former, and fewer of the latter… g/ng Seriously, you are making a valid point – for as long as a person is fully functional, don’t complain… But… I’d still have to say that 85 is at the very least ‘elderly’.

To: ajtj99 who wrote (43927)	6/29/2002 11:42:41 AM
From: AllansAlias	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 209892

Applying a historic rate of return to crash value (1990 low on the COMP with an annual rate of return of 8%) gets you to around COMP 800 today. Doubling that every 9-years, plus adding another double for bull runs would get you to 5,000 in around 15-years. That's not too bad. You sure you want to apply it to "crash" value. LOL Using a rate of return based on the 1990 COMPX value is hardly "historical". You are picking a rate of return based on the very best of times. The poor Nikkei is a good example of how things can flop about for years and years and, well, a long time. If we accept the premise, and it's a damn obvious one, that the NASDAQ bubble was at least the second greatest bubble ever witnessed in American history, then it is reasonable to assume that the ensuing bear and recovery will be proportionately deep and long. 15 years to 5000? That would be fantasmagorical and, imo, a very poor bet.