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 : P&S and STO Death Blow's -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeff who wrote (5316)	8/17/2002 7:17:15 PM
From: 16yearcycle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 30712

"where did the bubble start.....thats the question....was it 1000.....or that straight up area from 700" Was the nas expensive at 1000? Or at 700? Qcom sold at 4x forward e in oct 98, amat sold at 4x e in late 1996. Csco had a pe of 19 in late spring 1997. Msft had a pe of 19 in 1995, and INTC had a pe of 10 in dec 1995. nas at 1000 at thye end of 95. So was it a bubble? I don't know. It got very expensive very fast at the end of 1999. Pushing the bubble back to a time when tech stocks had pe's in the single digits might seem idiotic to some people. But real smart to others. Who is right? "if it follows the dow.....we lose 50% over the next 7-months....bottom in the spring 2003....ramp up...retest by oct 2003 to a higher low.....then double again....." Jeff, Oct/Nov 1929 to late June 1932 low was 31-32 months, not 35. We are comparitively 3 months before the end of the 1932 low, not a year. The March 2000 nas high was 29 months ago. Can you follow this addition ok? We have as many legs down already. We already have an 87% correlation, yet for some reason you expect this to go on for an additional 7-14 months. Why?