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 : MARKET INDEX TECHNICAL ANALYSIS - MITA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dominick who wrote (14569)	9/12/2002 7:51:22 AM
From: macavity	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19219

I think that is correct for a lot of mutual funds, though they can go to cash. The catch is it would not be hard to prove negligence, as it is obvious that the managers had no other plan except to keep on doing what they were doing. I think a pure Tech-Nothing-But-Tech fund is probably fine, but a lot of these funds have (during last year) switched to other sectors - blue-chips, mid-caps etc, just as these began to dive. One could argue why they did not do this sooner, and what event caused them to switch. If there was no plan - and I think it obvious that beyond hope ther was not one then a lawyer can make a case for negligence. These guys are goons, if a tobacco company is knowingly criminal for their actions, I am sure there are a few incriminating emails that show that these funds had too much in too illiquid stocks, and knew the effects of what would happen at COMP 3000, 2000 etc. -macavity